Registered sale deeds serve as public notice, determining the start of limitation periods, thereby justifying the rejection of plaint when filed after limitations lapse.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2025 passed in O.S.No.1153/2025 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (for short 'the Trial Court').

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.1153/2025 seeking the relief of judgment and decree for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, further relief of declaration that the defendant has not derived any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 25.04.1966 and consequential prayer of permanent injunction against the defendant. The respondent contested the suit by filing a written statement. The respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , seeking for rejection of the plaint. The appellant objected to the said application. Under the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

3. Sri.Shyam Sundar M.S, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application of the respondent for rejection of the plaint without appreciating the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It is submitted that the Trial Court considered the effect of the sale deed dated 25.04.1996 and recorded a finding with regard to caveat emptor, which ought to have been done after a full-fledged trial and not at the stage of considering the application for rejection of plaint. It is further submitted that while considering the application for rejection of plaint, the Trial Court is required to consider only the plaint averments. However, the finding in the impugned order is also based on the averments in the written statement which is impermissible. It is also submitted that the aspect of limitation and the cause of action is required to be tested on the strength of evidence adduced by the parties in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. However, the Trial Court has jumped to the conclusion on the aspect of limitation and cause of action and rejected the plaint, which is impermissible. It is contended that the Trial Court erred in recording the finding on the title of the appellant solely based on the plaint averments and the arguments of the other side, which is impermissible. It is further contended that the appellant has no knowledge with regard to the sale deed dated 25.04.1966 and the encumbrance certificate does not reflect the said entry. The appellant is a bona fide purchaser and has purchased the property after due diligence and all these aspects are required to be gone into by the Trial Court by recording the evidence.Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the respondent acquired the property by way of a registered sale deed dated 25.04.1966. It is submitted that once the property is registered, there is a presumption that the public at large has knowledge with regard to the acquisition of the property. It is further submitted that the respondent purchased the property from Smt.Doddavenkatamma way back in the year 1966 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit prop