Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
M/S JADE GARDEN PLOT OWNER’S ASSOCIATION – Petitioner
Versus
BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O LATE SHRI V. LASKHMANASWAMY – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 88 of 2024
Decided On : 25-10-2024
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Suit filed in 2008 challenging sale deed of 1995 - Suit barred by limitation as per Article 58 - Power of Attorney executed in 1990 valid despite death of principal - Sale deed executed in favor of defendant valid under Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872. (Paras 11.1, 12.1, 13.1, 14.1)
(B) Power of Attorney - Nature and validity - Power of Attorney coupled with interest remains valid post-death of principal - Execution of sale deed by Power of Attorney holder valid as it was executed in favor of agreement holder. (Paras 12.3, 12.4, 12.12)
(C) Partition Suit - Suit for partition filed after alienation of property prior to 20.12.2004 not maintainable - Proviso to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act protects prior alienations. (Paras 13.4, 13.7)
(D)
Findings of Court:
The suit was ex-facie barred by limitation and the Trial Court erred in not rejecting the plaint under Rule 11 of Order 7. (Paras 11.4, 14.4) (E)
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed; plaint rejected. (Para 15.1)
JUDGMENT :
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | |
| (A) | BACKGROUND [Error! Bookmark not defined] |
| (B) | SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER COUNSEL |
| (C) | SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT COUNSEL |
| (D) | SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER COUNSEL |
| (E) | POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION |
| (F) | Whether the suit filed in the year 2008 questioning the sale deed of the year 1995 was maintainable and was within the period of limitation requiring the Trial Court to excise powers under Rule 11 of Order 7 of the CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that it was barred by the law of limitation? |
| (G) | Whether the sale deed executed in pursuance of a General Power of Attorney, executed in pursuance of an agreement of sale in favour of Defendant No. 2, which could be said to be coupled with interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872, thereby making the sale deed of the year 1995 valid? |
| (H) | Whether a suit for partition filed in the year 2008 as regards the property which had been alienated by way of a registered document prior to 20.12.2004 could be maintainable in view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? |
| (I) | Whether the order passed by the Trial court suffers from any legal infirmity requiring interference at the hands of this court? |
| (J) | What Order? |
ORDER :
(A) BACKGROUND
1. The Petitioner, who is Defendant No. 25 in O.S. No. 162/2008, is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
(b) Set-aside the order dated 20.1.2023 passed on I.A. No. 11 in O.S. No. 162 of 2008, allow the said IA No. 11 filed by defendant No. 25 and reject the plaint in the said suit.
(c) Grant such other or further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.
(d) Grant cost of these proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The suit in O.S. No. 162/2008 had been filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 seeking for the following reliefs:
(b) Declare the sale agreement dated 13.02.1990 executed late B.T. Ramaiah the father of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff herein and same is null and void:
(A): declare that sale deed dated 24.1.1995 registered as document No. 2621/94-95 registered document No. 2621/94-95 registered in the office of the sub-registrar Devanahalli executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs.
(c) And direct the 1st and 2nd defendants to quit and vacate land deliver the 1/4th share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties by fixing the metes and bounds.
(d) And order for enquiry of the mesne profit under Order 20 Rule 12 of the CPC from the date of alleged agreement dated 13.02.1990 against the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs.
(e) And award the cost, of the suit, and pass such other order or orders, reliefs which are deemed fit the ends of justice in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Defendant No. 25 had impleaded itself in the said suit and thereafter filed an application under Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court vide its order dated 20.11.2023, which is under challenge in these proceedings.
(B) SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER COUNSEL
4. Shri S.S. Ramdas learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that:
A suit challenging a sale deed executed prior to 20.12.2004 is barred by limitation and cannot be maintained under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
A minor cannot seek partition of property post valid family partition among ancestors as it lacks legal foundation under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Unregistered agreements do not confer rights in property; a valid title requires a registered sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(1) Partition of property – It is not always necessary for a plaintiff in a suit for partition to seek cancellation of alienations.(2) Power of Attorney – Ordinarily, a Power of Attorney is to be con....
Proof of an unregistered Will is sufficient if established by other means, while a power of attorney coupled with consideration survives the principal's death.
Only a registered sale deed conveys ownership; unregistered documents such as Agreements to Sell do not confer rights in property, making a suit based on them subject to rejection.
Point of law: “Conduct of indifference or Acquiescence and held that, it is settled law that an estoppel may arise as against persons who have not willfully made any misrepresentation, and whose cond....
The court affirmed daughters' coparcener rights under the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing that prior sales cannot negate their claims to jointly inherited property.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
