In partition suits, assumption of constructive notice from the execution of registered Sale Deeds establishes the basis for determining rightful ownership and entitlements, which must be initiated within stipulated limitation periods.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH RAI K, J.

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the order dated 29.11.2022 passed on I.A.No.II/2018 filed by defendant No.5 i.e., respondent No.5 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of CPC in O.S.No.4609/2018 before the learned XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ("the Trial Court", for short) whereby, the Trial court allowed I.A.No.II/2018 with costs and consequently, rejected the plaint for want of cause of action and as barred by limitation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court.

3. The abridged facts of the case are as under:

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/2 share in the agricultural land bearing survey No. 83/4 measuring 0.22 guntas situated at Dodakannelli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk ("the suit schedule property", for short) and to declare the Sale Deeds executed with respect to suit schedule property as not binding on her and such other reliefs.

4. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that her grandfather late Thimma Reddy @ Chikka Thimma Reddy was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is the ancestral property of late Thimma Reddy @ Chikka Thimma Reddy who was married to Smt.Obakka and was succeeded by one son i.e., late K.T. Narayan Reddy, who is the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is the mother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's grandfather- Thimma Reddy died intestate in the year 1958 and her father- Narayan Reddy died intestate in the year 1962. Subsequently, her grandmother-Obakka has passed away intestate on 25.12.2016.

5. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the only legal heirs/successors succeeding to the suit schedule property. After the death of the plaintiff's grandmother, the plaintiff approached defendant No. 1 for partition of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 was continuously avoiding the plaintiff and subsequently, on 03.06.2018, when the plaintiff approached defendant No.1 seeking partition of the suit schedule property, she came to know that defendant No.1 without having exclusive right and title over the suit schedule property, had already sold the same to defendant No.2 through a registered Sale Deed dated 16.02.1993. The 2^nd defendant subsequently sold the schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 through a registered Sale Deed dated 20.10.1994, who in turn executed a registered Sale Deed dated 03.05.1995 in favour of defendant No.4. Further, defendant No.4 has sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.5 through a registered Sale Deed dated 10.05.2000. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and for a declaration that the aforesaid Sale Deeds were not binding on her.

6. After the service of suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 4 were placed exparte and defendant No.5 appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement denying the plaint averments and also filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of CPC. However, the said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections.

7. The Trial Court, upon perusal of the pleadings of the parties as enumerated in the plaint, I.A.No.II/2018 and objections, framed the following point for consideration:

"Whether the defendant No.5 has made out the grounds to allow the application filed under order 7 rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint for want of cause of action and barred by limitation?"

8. On hearing the learned counsel for the