The right to seek partition of joint family property exists independently of the limitation period, as the plaintiff's birthright is unaffected by the sale of his share by a co-owner.

1. Respondent No.1 herein instituted a suit seeking partition of the land bearing Sy.No.216/3 measuring 02 acres 20 guntas, and Sy.No.217/1 measuring 01 acre 24 guntas (the total extent of land being 04 acres 04 guntas).

2. It was the case of the plaintiff that his grandfather— Rame Gowda had two sons viz., Ninge Gowda and Mallu Gowda. The first son—Ninge Gowda was the plaintiff’s father. Defendant No.1—Siddamma was the wife of the second son of his grand-father i.e., Mallu Gowda. It was his case that the suit properties were coparcenary properties and that his father along with defendant No.1’s husband were enjoying the same as a joint family.

3. The said properties had not been subjected to any partition and continued to be joint. The plaintiff contended that he was entitled to a half share in the suit schedule property and defendant No.1—his paternal aunt was entitled to the other half share.

4. It is stated that his uncle—Mallu Gowda got his name entered and so0ld the property to defendant No.2 i.e., the petitioner herein, and the plaintiff recently gained knowledge of said transaction. Consequently, he issued a legal notice dated 25.06.2018 and defendant No.2 had given an untenable reply. He stated that since he was entitled to half share, he was seeking a partition.

5. In the suit O.S. No.951 of 2019, an application was filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the CPC”) by the petitioner—defendant No.2 requesting the Court to reject the plaint. It was contended that the suit should have been filed within three years from the date on which the plaintiff attained the age of majority. It was stated that the suit property had been sold on 06.12.1978 and it was not known as to whether plaintiff—respondent No.1 herein had been born as on 06.12.1978, and even if he was born on said date, the law of limitation mandated that he was to file a suit to annul the sale within three years from the date of him attaining the age of majority. The crux of the petitioner counsel’s argument was that as a consequence of not filing a suit within three years, the suit was barred by the law of limitation and the plaint was liable to be rejected.

6. It was also averred that since the petitioner had stated in his plaint that he was 41 years of age, it was obvious that as on the date of the sale, he was a minor and he ought to have filed a suit within three years. As a result of that not having been done, he contended that the plaint was liable to be rejected.

7. The Trial Court has rejected this application by way of the order impugned in this petition.

8. It has been held by the Trial Court that the plaint averments indicated that the plaintiff had stated that he came to know about the alleged sale deed only about a year ago and he had thereafter issued a legal notice on 25.06.2018, for which he got a reply dated 02.07.2018, and thus, the cause of action had arisen only on 25.06.2018, which resultantly meant that the suit could not be rejected on the ground that it was barred by time without subjecting the matter of the suit to trial.

9. As for the argument that the suit ought to have been filed within three years of the plaintiff attaining the age of majority, the Trial Court has taken the view that the question of limitation would be a mixed question of fact and law, and in order to decide such a question, it would be necessary to consider the entire pleadings as also the evidence, and therefore, it was concluded that the case at hand was not a fit case to reject the plaint.

10. Being aggrieved by the order above-mentioned, the present revision petition has been filed.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner—defendant No.2 strenuously contended that the plaint was liable to be rejected because the plaintiff, though had admitted that the property had been sold, had not mentioned the date of sale deliberately in order to overcome the aspect of limitation. He submitted that a meaningful reading of the plai