The court ruled that a plaint must disclose a valid cause of action and is barred by limitation if filed years after relevant transactions, thus preventing stale claims.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

1. This captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who has questioned the rejection of plaint by the trial Court exercising the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to make out a cause of action and also that plaint is barred by limitation. Rejection of the plaint is challenged by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

2. For the sake of brevity, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. Although the plaintiff has not furnished a formal genealogical tree, a reading of the plaint averments reveals that the suit property was originally granted to one Mallappa, the propositus of the family. It is pleaded that Mallappa had three sons, namely, Ningappa, Hanumanthappa, and Ramaiah. The plaintiff claims to belong to the branch of Ningappa, who is said to be his grandfather. It is further stated that Ningappa had a son named Lingappa, and the plaintiff is the son of said Lingappa. Thus, the plaintiff asserts his lineage and co- parcenary interest in the suit property through the male line descending from the original grantee Mallappa.

4. The suit has been instituted seeking the relief of partition and separate possession against defendants Nos.1 to 7, who are alleged to be in possession and control of the joint family ancestral properties. The plaintiff contends that despite repeated demands, the defendants have refused to effect partition. It is further alleged that the said defendants have unlawfully and without the consent of the plaintiff alienated portions of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendants Nos.8 to 19, thereby necessitating the present action. The plaintiff seeks to challenge the validity of these alienations and assert his share in the joint family properties.

5. Upon receipt of summons, the defendants entered appearance and proceeded to file an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint. The rejection was sought on the twin grounds that (i) the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and (ii) the suit is barred by limitation.

6. The learned Trial Judge, upon a careful scrutiny of the reliefs claimed in the plaint and the material averments therein, allowed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the CPC. The Court recorded a finding that the present suit lacks a foundational cause of action, inasmuch as the alienations sought to be challenged were made several decades earlier, and there was no explanation as to why the suit was not filed within the prescribed time. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that the plaintiff was seeking to assail sale deeds executed as far back as 1967, and applying Article 109 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, held that the claim was hopelessly barred. In exercise of the power under Section 3 of the LIMITATION ACT , the Trial Court rejected the plaint at the threshold on the ground of limitation. The said order is now assailed in the present proceedings.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has been heard at length in support of the challenge to the impugned order. The counsel contends that the Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the nature of the suit, the character of the properties, and the legal principles governing co-parcenary and partition rights.

8. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the submissions advanced and the pleadings in the plaint, the following points arise for determination in