ORDER :

CRP 297/2016 has been filed by the defendants 1, 2 and 3 and CRP No.166/2017 has been filed by defendant nos.15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 23 respectively challenging the common order passed on IA Nos. 4 and 9 whereby the applications filed under Order V11 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC came to be dismissed as per the order dated 18.06.2016.

2. As both the petitions have been filed challenging the common order both the petitions are disposed of by this order.

3. The parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial court for the purpose of convenience. The plaintiffs are stated to be the collateral and lineal descendants of late Munivenkata Bhovi. It is stated that the propositus Munivenkata Bhovi died leaving behind his legal representatives Hurukappa and two grandsons Dodda Venkataswamy and Chikka Venkataswamy. It is stated that the children of late Munivenkata Bhovi, Hurukappa and Chikka Venkataswamy had executed sale deed in favour of Khasimsab to the exclusion of Dodda Venkataswamy by the sale deed dated 09-12-1946 with respect to the property described as ‘A’ schedule property.

4. Subsequently it is stated that late Khasimsab sold the same property in favour of late H.R.Lakshmaiah Reddy and the property has changed hands as per the narration contained in paragraph 5 onwards of the plaint.

5. The plaintiffs claiming under late Dodda Venkataswamy have filed the present suit for partition seeking for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to an extent of one third share of the joint family property with a further direction that the sale deeds executed by the children of late Munivenkata Bhovi are not binding to the extent of one third share of Dodda Venkataswamy’s share.

6. The defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 have filed an application under Order V11 Rule 11 (a) and (d) and sought for rejection of plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action as the properties were vested under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act 1954 and Lakshmaiah Reddy had acquired title in respect of the property by virtue of a grant. It was also contended that the title of the plaintiffs’ great-grandfather stood extinguished on 09.12.1946 and hence the suit was barred by limitation.

7. The defendant nos. 21, 22, 23, 25, 30 and 31 had also filed an application numbered as I.A. No. 9 seeking for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 to 11 CPC. It was contended that the plaintiffs were seeking for a declaration that the sale deed dated 19.12.1946 and the subsequent transactions are not binding on the plaintiffs share. It is contended that as the sale deed at the first instance was executed by the ancestors of the plaintiffs family in 1946 the said relief relating to the sale deed was barred by the law of limitation, it was further contended that the land in survey No.55 was converted for nonagricultural purpose and the Bangalore Development Authority had approved the layout but however court fee was paid by treating the property as agricultural land which was contrary to the legal position as laid out in the case of J. M. Narayana and others v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore, By its Commissioner Office, Bangalore and Others reported in ILR 2005 KAR 60, it was also contended that all cosharers including those with whom two thirds share was vested were not made parties though they were necessary parties in a suit for partition, that as proceedings were pending regarding resumption of land under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (“the P.T.C.L. Act”, for short) suit could have been filed only after land was restored under the provisions of the aforesaid Act.

8. Common objections were filed by the plaintiffs to I.A.No. 4 and I No. 9, whereby the stand taken was that the land was not a Personal or Miscellaneous Service Inam, that the question of limitation would not come into play in light of the plaintiffs