A court is empowered and mandated under the code of civil procedure to reject a plaint at the threshold if, upon a meaningful reading, the suit is found to be vexatious, devoid of a cause of action, or clearly barred by the law of limitation.

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.02.2023 IN O.S.NO.424/2022 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ON THE APPLICATION (I.A.NO.2) FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS NO.6 & 7 UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (a), (b) & (d) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN REJECTING THE PLAINT AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY DISMISSING APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS NO.6 & 7 IN O.S.NO.424 OF 2022 BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

&

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)

1. The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2023, in O.S.No.424/2022, passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’). By the Impugned Judgment, a suit filed for partition and declaration was dismissed by the learned Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), holding that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit has been filed with insufficient Court fees and is barred by limitation.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking relief of 1/5th share and partition by metes and bounds in the suit schedule property, being agricultural land bearing Survey No.52, measuring to an extent of 47 acres, situated at Kattugollahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru Bounded on (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit schedule property’):

East by : Property belongs to Kattugollahalli Siddappa

West by : Marasandrada Yelle

North by : Government Banjaru Land

South by : Manduru Gramada Yelle

2.1 In addition, a declaration was also sought that the three Sale Deeds dated 30.05.1980 and two release deeds dated 04.12.2020 are not binding on the appellants/plaintiffs.

3. It was averred in the suit that one Pandit Narasimhaiya is the predecessor-in-interest of the family of the appellants/plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5, had two wives. The first wife had one child and the second wife had seven children. The appellants/plaintiffs were stated to be the grandchildren of the said Pandit Narasimhaiya, being the son of his son Ramaiah. It was stated that the appellants/plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 to 5 are members of a Hindu Undivided Joint Family.

4. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by respondents/defendants No.6 and 7, under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC setting out three grounds. Firstly, that the suit is barred by limitation, secondly, the suit does not disclose any cause of action and thirdly, that the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to pay adequate court fee. It was contended in the application that the declaration that was sought for, were in respect of three Sale Deeds of the year 1980 and two Release Deeds of the year 2020 and no challenge to these Sale Deeds after 42 years can be maintained. In addition, it was also stated that the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to pay adequate Court fee under Section 35(1) of the Karnat