The dismissal of a suit application under Order VII Rule 11 requires clear legal grounds for limitation, which were not established by the defendants.

ORDER :

V.SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar V, for Sri Narayana Swamy P.M., learned counsel for the revision petitioners. None appears for the respondents.

2. Defendant Nos.6, 7 and 9 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure passed in O.S No.37/2012 dated 22.01.2024 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

A suit in O.S No.37/2012 came to be filed by the plaintiffs against 32 defendants with the following prayer in respect of following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’):

PRAYER

Wherefore, the plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree against the defendants:

a) Declaring that the alleged sale deed dated 25-10- 1990 executed by Defendants 1 and 2 and the father of the Defendants 3 and 4 and their mother Ghouse Bi in favour of the 5^th Defendant is illegal and not binding on the Plaintiffs legitimate ½ share.

b) The Sale deeds executed by Defendants 6 in favour of Defendants No.9,10,15,16,21,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 and sale deeds executed by Defendant No.7 In favour of Defendant No.11,12,13,14,17,18,19,20,22,23,24 are not binding on these plaintiffs.

c) By granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 6 to 8 from alienating the Suit schedule property in favour of the third parties.

d) By effecting partition allotting the Plaintiffs legitimate ½ share in suit schedule property by fixing metes and bounds and put the plaintiffs in separate possession of his shares so allotted.

e) Grant costs of the suit and

f) To pass such other relief/s this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

SCHEDULE

All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No.86/1, measuring 3 acres 1 guntas including 3 guntas of Karab situated at Kuduregere Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and bounded on :-

East by: Nakase Road and Land of Chennamma

West by: Land of Kuduregere Revanna,

North by: Land in Sy. No.86.2,

South by: Government Road and others property.”

4. Plaintiffs contended that first plaintiff is the daughter-in-law, plaintiff Nos.2 to 6, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the grandchildren and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the great grandchildren of Madar Sab @ Bapu Sab. It is further contended that Madar Sab @ Bapu Sab was married to Smt.Fathima and in their wedlock, they had two sons namely Sheik Hussain Sab @ Sheik Sab and Sheik Buden Sab @ Baba Sab.

5. Plaintiffs further contented that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the Sunni Muslims. During the lifetime of Madar Sab, he has acquired land bearing Sy.No.86/1 measuring three acres one gunta, including three guntas of kharab land situated at Kuduregere Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

6. It is contended that Madar Sab @ Bapu Sab died about 40 years earlier intestate leaving behind his wife Fathima and two sons as aforesaid.

7. Plaintiffs further contended that Fathima being the mother of Sheik Hussain Sab and Sheik Buden Sab died. Thereafter, Sheik Hussain Sab and Sheik Buden Sab succeeded to the suit property as tenants in common, each having half share in the suit property.

8. It is further contented that Sheikh Hussain Sab and Sheikh Buden Sab also died leaving behind their respective wife and children to succeed to their respective share of the suit property.

9. During the lifetime of Sheikh Hussain Sab and Sheikh Buden Sab, no partition has taken place in respect of the suit property. Therefore, plaintiffs and d