A suit challenging a subsequent gift deed is not maintainable if the plaintiff fails to challenge the registered partition deed that granted absolute ownership to the donor, especially when such a challenge is barred by limitation.

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S. 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. V IN OS NO. 4278/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA NO.V FILED U/O VII RULE 11 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the order of the learned Judge in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

Facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiffs have instituted the suit in O.S. No.4278/2024 seeking a declaration that the registered partition deed dated 01.09.2005 is merely an internal arrangement between the plaintiffs and late R. Jagadeesh, husband of defendant. Consequently, the plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the gift deed executed by late R. Jagadeesh in favour of defendant is null and void and not binding on them. A further relief of perpetual injunction is also sought restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ alleged rights over the suit schedule property. It is not in dispute that the partition deed dated 01.09.2005 is a registered document and that the plaintiffs are parties to the said instrument. The pleadings in the plaint also disclose that the gift deed executed by late R. Jagadeesh in favour of the defendant is founded on the allotment made under the said registered partition deed.

Upon receipt of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and that the suit is ex facie barred by limitation. The said application was contested by the plaintiffs by filing detailed objections.

The learned Trial Judge, on examination of the plaint averments and the registered partition deed dated 01.09.2005, has held that the suit instituted in the year 2024, nearly two decades after execution of the registered partition deed, is clearly barred by limitation. The Trial Court has further held that the plaint does not disclose a legally sustainable cause of action, inasmuch as the plaintiffs have failed to seek appropriate relief to set aside or invalidate the registered partition deed. On these findings, the plaint came to be rejected by invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.

Aggrieved by the order of rejection of plaint, the plaintiffs are before this Court.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel appearing for the defendant. This Court has carefully perused the pleadings, the impugned order, and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Upon such consideration, the following points arise for determination:

i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure?

ii) Whether the plaintiffs, without seeking to challenge or set aside the registered partition deed dated 01.09.2005, have the locus standi to question the gift deed executed by late R. Jagadeesh in favour of the defendant?

iii) What order?

Finding on Point Nos. i and ii:

Before adverting to the correctness of the impugned order, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the prayer sought in the plaint, as the nature of reliefs claimed has a direct bearing on the issue of maintainability. A careful reading of the plaint discloses that the plaintiffs have consciously avoided seeking any substantive relief for cancellation or setting aside of the registered partition deed dated 01.09.2005, to which they are admittedly parties. Instead, the plaintiffs have sought to characterize the said registered instrume