Limitations on property claims based on prior registered deeds involve mixed questions of law and fact, warranting detailed examination rather than dismissal.

ORDER :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri.A.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Shivashankar K., learned counsel for respondent.

2. Defendants are the revision petitioners challenging the validity of the order passed in O.S.No.94/2019 dated 16.12.2022 in dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short).

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

3.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.94/2019 with the following prayer in the respect of the following immovable property:

PRAYER

“Wherefore, the plaintiff respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased:

a. To declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

b. To declare that the sale deed dated 17.10.1998 which was executed by one Muniyellappa in favour of father of the 1^st defendant is not binding on the plaintiff.

c. To declare that the Will deed dated 05.08.2014 which was executed by father of the 1^st defendant in favour of 2^nd defendant in respect of the suit schedule property is not binding on the plaintiff.

d. To pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants either acting by themselves or through their agents, power of Attorney holders, representatives or assigns etc. from interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

e. To pass any other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case including the costs of the proceedings.

SCHEDULE

All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Old Sy.No.12, new No.239, measuring to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land situated at Kannurahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District bounded on:

3.2. Plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the property by virtue of the grant made by the State Government in his favour.

3.3. It is also contended that defendants have no manner of rights but by alleged transfer of revenue entries without there being any right, they started interfering with the property based on the sale deed as well as the Will.

3.4. A Will said to have been executed on 08.05.2014 by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit property.

3.5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and specifically contending that plaint contains wrong statement on the factual aspects as well.

3.6. An application is also filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation in view of the fact that the sale deed executed in the year 1998 is sought to be assailed in the year 2019 and therefore, the suit is per se barred by limitation.

4. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, dismissed the application filed by the defendants by impugned order.

5. Same is called in question by the defendants in this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contented that per se the suit is barred by limitation in view of the fact that the sale deed came to be executed in the year 1998, which is sought to be declared as null and void by filing a suit in the year 2019.

7. He would further emphasize that Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act makes it clear that t