A suit for declaration is maintainable if the cause of action arises after discovery of fraudulent transactions, thus extending the limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH RAI K., J.

1. This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the order passed in I.A.No.V filed by defendant Nos.7 and 8 i.e., respondent Nos. 8 and 9 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.804/2018 before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court" for short) whereby, the Trial court allowed I.A.No.V and consequently, rejected the plaint for want of cause of action and by stating that the suit is barred by limitation vide order dated 11.09.2023.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court. The appellant are the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants.

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

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants contending that she is the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing Sy.No.8, measuring to an extent of 20 guntas carved out of 1 Acre 21 guntas, (excluding 2 guntas of kharab) situated at Avalalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Erstwhile Bangalore South Taluk (now Bangalore East Taluk) vide Sale Deed dated 12.12.1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Schedule A Property").

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that, defendant No.1 and her father Sri. N Nanjundappa were the absolute owners of the agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.8, measuring to an extent of 1 acre 21 guntas including 2 guntas of kharab and land measuring to an extent of 17 guntas inclusive of 1 gunta of phot karab in Sy.No.9, in all measuring 2 acres inclusive of 3 guntas situated at Avalahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, erst while Bengaluru South Taluk, now Bengaluru East Taluk (hereinafter referred to as "the item no. 1 of plaint schedule B property" for short).

5. Further, defendant No.1 and her father were also absolute owners of the property bearing Sy.No.10 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 28 guntas including 1 gunta of phot karab and Sy.No.11, measuring to an extent of 2 acres 12 guntas, in all measuring 4 acres at Avalahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Item no. 2 of the Schedule B property" for short).

6. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that, pursuant to acquiring the 'schedule A property', she got mutated revenue records in her name vide MR.No. 48/96-97 and continued to be in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said property as absolute owner thereof by getting the said property duly compounded and fenced by barbed wire. It is contended that the 'schedule A property' and 'item Nos.1 and 2 of schedule B properties' are the adjacent properties from NH-4 (Bengaluru Kolar Madras Road). Hence, a 20 feet wide common road has been formed on the eastern side of the said properties by her vendors leading from NH- 4 and passing through Sy.Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 as the only access to the said properties.

7. The plaintiff further contended that, ever since from the date of execution of the Sale Deed of schedule A property in her favour by defendant No.1 and her father on 12.12.1996, she continued to exercise the rights of absolute ownership over the same, without any hindrance, or obstruction from anybody much less from the defendants.

8. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that, defendant No.1 and her father Sri N Nanjundappa along with partners of defendant No.6 i.e., M/s Manjunatha Developers and Constructions Pvt Ltd, interfered with the lawful possession of the plaintiff in 'schedule A property' sometime in the year 2004 and left with no option, the plaintiff filed the su