The court held that plaintiffs, being aware of a prior family sale, cannot invalidate it after a significant delay, as they lack standing to seek partition in this context.

ORDER :

R. DEVDAS, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendant No.5 in the suit, being aggrieved of the rejection of its interlocutory application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a)(b) & (d) of CPC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court.

3. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration that the sale deed 01.08.2003 executed by defendants No.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of the suit schedule property is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Prayer is also sought for effecting partition of the suit schedule property and allotment of their legitimate shares in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit is filed in the year 2013. Defendant No.5 filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is not properly valued, since admittedly defendant No.5 is in possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs have not sought for relief of possession. Secondly, since admittedly the grandfather of the plaintiffs, late Sri Chikkanna acquired the suit schedule property under registered Partition Deed dated 06.09.1966 and he, along with his sons executed the sale deed on 01.08.2003, in favour of defendant No.5, the sale made by the plaintiffs fathers and grandfather cannot be questioned by the plaintiffs. Thirdly, the suit is barred by limitation, since the suit is filed 10 years after the sale transaction.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant No.5 submits that defendant No.1 is the father of plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and defendant No.3 is the father of plaintiffs No.4 and 5. Defendants No.2 and 4 are the brothers of defendants No.1 and 3 and they are the uncles of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, during the life time of Sri Chikkanna, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, along with all his children and his two brother Venkatappa and Subbanna have jointly executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.5, thereby transferring all the rights, in favour of defendant No.5. Moreover, the sale deed was executed on 01.08.2003, prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (for short “The Act”) and therefore plaintiff No.1, the daughter of defendant No.1 cannot seek to invalidate an alienation which took place before the 20^th day of December, 2004. Insofar as other plaintiffs are concerned, learned counsel submitted that the plaintiffs have not stated anything in the plaint to satisfy their belated claim. It is simply stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs were not aware of the sale transaction and when they found defendants No.5 and 6 on the suit schedule property trying to develop the property, when they questioned defendants No.5 and 6, they were told about the sale transaction. Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 gave an evasive reply that they had not sold the property, but they had entered into a Joint Development Agreement. However, it is submitted that the Sale Deed is a registered instrument and therefore the same is presumed to be to the knowledge of the entire world.

5. Learned counsel has placed reliance on M.R. Vinoda vs. M.S. Susheelamma , (2021) 20 SCC 180, where it was held that a Karta of a joint Hindu family can dispose of joint family property involving the undivided interest of a minor. That being the position, a coparcener cannot seek an injunction restraining the Karta from alienating the joint Hindu family property. A Karta can ali