A settlement in partition suits, accepted by the court, mandates withdrawal of claims when statutory limitations are exceeded; parties must understand and consent free from undue influence.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant and respondents are before this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 identify their respective parties. The appellant and the respondents No.1 to 3 have filed Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') reporting settlement. However, the respondents No.5 to 7 though served are not represented by anyone and are not present before the Court. Since, there is a decree in favour of respondents No.5 to 7, who were defendants No.2 to 4, this Court is of the view that the appeal of the appellant has to be considered on merits as against respondents No.5 to 7.

2. This appeal is arising from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.17147/2006 on the file of XXVIII Additional City Civil Court, Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru.

3. The suit is one for partition by the daughters of one Kempamma. Kempamma was arrayed as the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the grand son of Kempamma through her deceased son Venkatachala. The 3rd and 4th defendants are the sons of Kempamma. The 5th defendant is the purchaser of the property from Kempamma. Kempamma and her four sons namely Venkatachala, Narasimha Murthy, Rajanna @ Raja and Thopaiah sold the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 19.10.1994. Thopaiah died issueless. Hence, he is not a party to the proceeding. Venkatachala died before the suit, hence his son is arrayed as a party.

4. Before the Trial Court, Kempamma and her grand son Manju and her two sons namely Narasimha Murthy and Rajanna @ Raja remained exparte. Even before this Court they have remained absent, despite service of notice.

5. The plaintiffs who are the daughters of Kempamma filed a suit for partition. The suit is filed against their mother and brothers. The mother sold the property under registered sale deed dated 19.10.1994. In the plaint the plaintiffs have not sought cancellation of the sale deed. The plaintiffs contend that the property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 4. The defendants No.1 to 4 remained exparte. Defendant No.5 who is the purchaser from defendant No.1 contested the suit. The suit is decreed holding that each of the plaintiffs is having 1/7th share in the suit property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant No.5 - purchaser is in appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation. It is also his submission that the defendant No.1 purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 17.05.1972. As such, the property is a self-acquired property. He would submit that the suit is decreed without considering these two vital aspects of the matter. He would also submit that the appellant has produced the application for production of additional evidence to show that the property was purchased by defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 17.05.1972.

7. After considering the submissions made and also considering the materials on record, the following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs' is barred by limitation?

(ii) Whether the suit property was the absolute property of the first defendant?

8. From the records placed before this Court, it is evident that the suit is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession by the three daughters of Kempamma- defendant No.1. The plaint does not disclose anything about the sale transaction by Kempamma who has sold the property along with her sons under the registered sale deed dated 19.10.1994. The suit is filed in the year 2006. The plaintiffs have produced the family tree reflecting their age. The said family tree is marked at Ex.P1. From the said family tree, which