Claims regarding partition and declarations must adhere to statutory limitation periods; failure to contest registered transactions within the prescribed time bars legal challenges.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the order dated 2.4.2025 on I.A.No.VI, passed in OS No.857/2016, by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Devanahalli.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession, and to declare that the registered sale deed dated 19.10.2001, executed by defendants No.1 and 2, and others in favour of late Smt.Renukamma as not binding on the share of the plaintiff, and the registered sale deed dated 31.12.2004 and the Rectification Deed dated 6.7.2005 executed by the late Renukamma, defendants No.7 to 9 represented by her GPA holder, defendant No.10, in favour of defendant No.11 as not binding on the share of the plaintiff.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Muniyappa @ Roddappa was the propositor of the family. He and his wife, defendant No.1 - Rajamma, had six issues, i.e., defendants No.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 are governed by the Hindu Mitakshara Law. The plaintiff contended that originally the land bearing Sy.No.122/2 was cultivated by defendants No.1 and 2, and their family. During this time, the Government has passed an order that the persons who are cultivating the land, shall be declared as owners. As such, defendants No.1 and 2, being the elders of the joint family, the schedule property was granted in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 by the Land Tribunal, Devanahalli, on 11.12.1980.

5. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 6 are in joint possession of the suit schedule property, and there is no division or partition of the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendants No.1 and 2, along with their minor children, have illegally sold the schedule property in favour of Smt.Renukamma i.e. the mother of defendants No.7 to 9, under a registered sale deed dated 19.10.2001. As of the date of execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff was a minor, and without obtaining the permission from the Civil Court, defendants No.1 and 2 have sold the minor's share in the suit schedule property. The said sale consideration was not utilized for the welfare of the plaintiff. Thus, the sale deed dated 19.10.2001 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff. It is contended that Smt.Renukamma and her children, i.e. defendants No.7 to 9, executed a GPA in favour of defendant No.10, and based on the GPA, defendant No.10 sold the schedule property in favour of defendant No.11 under a sale deed dated 31.12.2004. The said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff's share. Further, a Rectification Deed in favour of defendant No.11 on 4.7.2005, as the names of defendants No.7 to 9 were not mentioned in the sale deed dated 31.12.2004.

6. It is contended that the said transaction was not within the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. It is further contended that defendants No.1 and 2 had no right to deal with the schedule property by ignoring the rights, and share of the plaintiff. The plaint was filed withi