The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for partition can be barred by law and limitation if there is already a decree and final decree in place, and the plaintiff fails to enforce the decree within the limitation period. The doctrine of acquiescence can also be applied if the plaintiff has kept quiet for an extended period.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the petitioner's counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The factual matrix of the case of respondent No.1 before the Trial Court while filing the suit in O.S.No.231/2019 contend that, one Nanjareddy had three sons, Ramareddy, Lingareddy and Munireddy of Agaram Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore. The said family possessed vast properties in and around Agara Village and in Bangalore City. There was a family partition amongst the members of the Nanjareddy Family by virtue of O.S.No.1/1915-16 on the file of the Court of District Judge at Bangalore dtd. 8/10/1923, which got culminated in Final Decree proceedings vide FDP dtd. 14/5/1928.

3. In terms of the said proceedings shares of the respective parties therein were determined and definite shares were allotted to the parties therein as per the schedule appended. The plaintiff herein falls in the branch of Munireddy who had three sons and plaintiff is the grandson of Nanjunda S/o Munireddy. Late Munireddy got a definite share as per the judgment and decree and FDP proceedings and the said Munireddy died during the pendency of the suit leaving behind his three sons without getting an inch in suit schedule property towards his share of 1/3rd which was declared by the Court towards his legitimate share, which declaration remained un- assailed in the preliminary decree which too came to be culminated in the Final Decree Proceedings and there was a cordial relationship with the parties and possession was continued with Ramareddy and its members and bonafidely believed them and there was no room for suspicion and their behavior also never raised any doubts in the minds of the plaintiffs' family. But now they have declined to give a share. Hence, filed a suit for the relief of partition of 1/3rd legitimate share.

4. The defendant appeared and filed statement of objections, defendant No.4 also had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint contending that suit is barred by law. The plaintiff is trying to enforce and execute the decree passed in favour of his grand father Nanjundareddy in Final Decree Proceedings dtd. 14/5/1928 passed in O.S.No.1/1915-16 on the file of the District Judge, Bangalore and such claim is not maintainable and suit is barred under Sec. 47 of CPC. The plaintiff is trying to enforce and execute the decree passed in favour of his grand father Nanjundareddy. The present suit is filed after lapse of 90 years and therefore same is hopelessly barred by limitation and no cause of action. The plaintiff also appeared and filed the objection statement before the Trial Court. The Trial Court formulated the point whether plaint does not disclose the cause of action to file the suit and it is barred by law. The Trial Court having considered both pleadings of the plaintiff and also the grounds urged in the application and statement of objections filed by the plaintiff comes to the conclusion that Sec. 47 of the CPC does not attract and also the suit is not barred by limitation. The Trial Court given the finding that plaintiff has sought for relief of partition with respect of the property fallen to the share of Munireddy and hence the contention of the plaintiff that suit is barred by law will not holds good. The plaint averments also reveals that partition among the legal heirs of deceased Munireddy has not been effected and plaintiff being the legal heirs of deceased Munireddy is entitled to a share and hence there is a cause of action for the suit and rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC with cost of Rs.500.00. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

5. The counsel would vehemently contend in his argument that when the decree was passed in 1923 and also FDP was culminated vide order dtd. 14/5/1928, already there was a decree of partition and preliminary decree was passed and final decree was also passed and hence, no question of once again