The court emphasized that questions of limitation and cause of action are mixed issues of law and fact best resolved at trial, not at the application stage.

ORDER :

1. Heard Shri.Anandarama.K. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri.V.F.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. Defendant No.10 in O.S.No.4758 of 2020 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application vide I.A.No.4 filed under 7 Rule 11 of CPC by order dated 06.12.2022 by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.3).

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

A suit came to be filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 5 seeking following reliefs, in respect of the following properties:

a) To effect partition of the suit schedule property and allot the shares of the plaintiffs to the extent of 1/3^rd and put them on their separate possession by metes and bounds.

b) To declare that the registered Sale Deed dated 6/02/1995 executed by late Bylamma and other registered as Document No.7443/1994-95 in favour the 5^th Defendant's father in respect of the Suit Schedule Property.

c) The alleged Sale Deed dated 10/07/2002 registered as Document No.3228/2002-03 executed by mother of the 5^th Defendant late Puttalakshamma in favour of the 6^th Defendant.

d) The alleged registered Sale Deeds dated 27/05/2004 executed by 6^th Defendant 7th in favour of the 7^th to 9^th Defendants registered as Document No.3875/2004-005, Document No.3878/2004-05 and Document No.3879/2004-05 respectively, registered in the offices of the sub-registrar Yelahanka.

e) The alleged registered Sale Agreement entered into between the 9^th Defendant in favour of 10^th Defendant 2/5/2016 document No.YAN/100625 stored in CDNo. YAND 627 registered in the office of the sub-registrar Yelahanka are not binding on the shares of the Plaintiffs over the Suit Scheduled Property.

f) And grant such other reliefs along with cost of this suit in the interest of justice and equity.

SCHEDULE

All that piece and parcel of the land bearing survey No.3 measuring 22 guntas out of total extent to 8.23 guntas, situated at Sampigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore Dist as here under.

East by: Property of Survey No.2/1

West by: Property of Survey No.6/7

North by: Remaining land of same survey number

South by: Road

4. No doubt in the plaint, there are no necessary particulars with regard to the age and death of the common propositus and how the property thereafter devolved on the members of the family.

5. However, the plaintiffs claim that they are the children of A.Rajanna who had a share in the suit property. As admittedly, suit property was 'thoti inam' land and after Inam Abolition Act came into force, after filing an application by the head of the joint family, re- conveyance has been made and plaintiffs claim under him who has been re-granted the property.

6. In the meantime, there was an alienation of the suit property in the year 1995 and subsequently, several hands have changed in respect of the suit property.

7. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants appeared before the Court and defendant No.10 filed written statement and also an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation and also on the ground of want of cause of action to the suit.

8. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and the learned Trial Judge after hearing the arguments of the parties, noted the fact that the plaintiffs are not seeking cancellation of the sale deed but they are seeking their share and therefore, rejected the application by the impugned order.

9. Being aggrieved