A suit challenging a registered sale deed on grounds of fraud must plead specific material particulars under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC, and failing to challenge such alienation within the statutory limitation period bars the suit.

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULES 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.07.2023 PASSED IN O.S NO.935/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-40), BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs in O.S No.935/2021 on the file of the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2023, by which their suit for partition and separate possession in respect of three items of suit properties was decreed in part and the suit in so far as item No.2 of the suit properties was dismissed.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs while the respondents herein were the defendants before the Trial Court.

3. The suit in O.S No.935/2021 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties and to declare the sale deed executed by the parents of the plaintiffs dated 13.04.2012 in favour of the defendant No.2 as not binding upon them. Since this appeal is only in respect of the dismissal of the suit in so far as the suit schedule item No.2 property is concerned, the facts henceforth stated is only in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties.

4. Plaintiffs claimed that the suit schedule item No.2 was land bearing Sy. No.139/1 measuring 05 guntas of land situate in Yadavanahalli, Attibele hobli, Anekal Taluk. They claimed that their mother had filed O.S No.903/1993 before the Court of Munsiff and JMFC., Anekal, for a declaration that she had perfected her title to the suit schedule property by adverse possession and for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court in terms of the order dated 25.01.1994 (decree signed on 31.01.1994), by which she derived 05 guntas of land in Sy. No.139. They claimed that the defendant No.1, was a friend of their father and was also working in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, where his father was working. They alleged that the defendant No.1 used to visit their house often and was a well-wisher of the family. They claimed that their parents trusted the defendant No.1 but he fraudulently and illegally obtained a sale deed dated 13.04.2012 in respect of the suit schedule item No.2 in the name of his wife. The plaintiffs claimed that their parents did not execute a sale deed on their own accord but were misled by the defendant No.1 as at the relevant time, there was no necessity for the plaintiffs' parents to sell the suit schedule item No.2. With these contentions, the plaintiffs claimed that they were not bound by the sale deed dated 13.04.2012 and that they are entitled to a share in the suit schedule item No.2 property.

5. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.1 and 2, who contended that the suit schedule item No.2 is the self acquired property of the mother of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, namely Smt. Siddarajamma and that she sold it for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- to the defendant No.2 in terms of a sale deed dated 13.04.2012. They claimed that the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 had also consented to the said sale by attesting the document as a consenting witness. They, therefore, contended that the sale deed dated 13.04.2012 is binding upon the plaintiffs and they are not entitled to a share in the suit s