Heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel

appearing for the respondents.

2. The factual matrix of the case of respondent No.1 before

the Trial Court while filing the suit in O.S.No.231/2019 contend

that, one Nanjareddy had three sons, Ramareddy, Lingareddy

and Munireddy of Agaram Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore. The

said family possessed vast properties in and around Agara

Village and in Bangalore City. There was a family partition

amongst the members of the Nanjareddy Family by virtue of

O.S.No.1/1915-16 on the file of the Court of District Judge at

Bangalore dated 8.10.1923, which got culminated in Final

Decree proceedings vide FDP dated 14.5.1928.

3. In terms of the said proceedings shares of the

respective parties therein were determined and definite shares

were allotted to the parties therein as per the schedule

appended. The plaintiff herein falls in the branch of Munireddy

who had three sons and plaintiff is the grandson of Nanjunda S/o

Munireddy. Late Munireddy got a definite share as per the

5

judgment and decree and FDP proceedings and the said

Munireddy died during the pendency of the suit leaving behind

his three sons without getting an inch in suit schedule property

towards his share of 1/3^rd which was declared by the Court

towards his legitimate share, which declaration remained un-

assailed in the preliminary decree which too came to be

culminated in the Final Decree Proceedings and there was a

cordial relationship with the parties and possession was

continued with Ramareddy and its members and bonafidely

believed them and there was no room for suspicion and their

behavior also never raised any doubts in the minds of the

plaintiffs’ family. But now they have declined to give a share.

Hence, filed a suit for the relief of partition of 1/3^rd legitimate

share.

4. The defendant appeared and filed statement of

objections, defendant No.4 also had filed an application under

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint contending that

suit is barred by law. The plaintiff is trying to enforce and

execute the decree passed in favour of his grand father

6

Nanjundareddy in Final Decree Proceedings dated 14.5.1928

passed in O.S.No.1/1915-16 on the file of the District Judge,

Bangalore and such claim is not maintainable and suit is barred

under Section 47 of CPC. The plaintiff is trying to enforce and

execute the decree passed in favour of his grand father

Nanjundareddy. The present suit is filed after lapse of 90 years

and therefore same is hopelessly barred by limitation and no

cause of action. The plaintiff also appeared and filed the

objection statement before the Trial Court. The Trial Court

formulated the point whether plaint does not disclose the cause

of action to file the suit and it is barred by law. The Trial Court

having considered both pleadings of the plaintiff and also the

grounds urged in the application and statement of objections

filed by the plaintiff comes to the conclusion that Section 47 of

the CPC does not attract and also the suit is not barred by

limitation. The Trial Court given the finding that plaintiff has

sought for relief of partition with respect of the property fallen to

the share of Munireddy and hence the contention of the plaintiff

that suit is barred by law will not holds good. The plaint

averments also reveals that partition among the legal heirs of

7

deceased Munireddy has not been effected and plaintiff being the

legal heirs of deceased Munireddy is entitled to a share and

hence there is a cause of action for the suit and rejected the

application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC with cost of

Rs.500/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision

petition is filed.

5. The counsel would vehemently contend in his argument

that when the decree was passed in 1923 and also FDP was

culminated vide order dated 14.5.1928, already there was a

decree of partition and preliminary decree was passed and final

decree was also passed and hence, no question of once again

fi