Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
G. Krupananda, S/o. George – Appellant
Versus
Veena, W/o. Chandrashekar Reddy H.B. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and representation of parties. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. case background discussing the plaintiff's claims and initial court rulings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations emphasizing procedural errors and need for fresh trial. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. appellant's arguments on merits and limitations. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard the learned counsel Sri. G. Balakrishna Shastry.
2. The present second appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the Order passed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.24/2023 reversing the order rejecting the plaint passed in O.S.No.347/2022.
3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:
A suit for partition came to be filed by the respondents claiming to be the minor daughters of 1st defendant. Alienation was made by the 1st defendant in respect of the suit property prior 20.12.2004. Present appellant is the purchaser of the suit property being the defendant No.3 who had purchased the property from defendant who had earlier purchased the property from the 1st defendant.
4. Defendant No.3 filed application under Order VII Rule 11 (a and d) to reject the p
The court emphasized that all plaintiffs must be afforded an opportunity to present their case, especially concerning limitations and causes of action in partition suits.
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.
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 wi....
A suit for partition filed after the limitation period is barred; knowledge of exclusion triggers the 12-year limit under the Limitation Act. Ancestral property cannot be alienated unilaterally by a ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
