THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2022 PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs calling in question the order dated 31.01.2022 passed on I.A.No.II filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.924/2015 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli¹1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short., thereby, the plaint filed by the plaintiffs was rejected.

3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to declare that they are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction by pleading that one Srinivasaiah was the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule land and he died issueless. His wife is Sundramma. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are the sons of brother of the said Srinivasaiah; therefore, it is contended that the plaintiffs succeeded to the suit schedule land as Class-II legal heirs as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘H.S.Act, 1956’ for short). Hence, with these pleadings, the suit is filed for the above said relief. It is also stated in the plaint that the mother of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 namely Jayalakshmi had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.597/2007 claiming to be as Class-II legal heir and the said suit was dismissed for default. Plaintiff No.4 was the General Power of Attorney (GPA, for short) of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.597/2007. Hence, the sum and substance of the pleadings in the plaint that the plaintiffs have become owners of the property as Class-II legal heirs of Srinivasaiah.

5. The defendants have entered appearance and filed a written statement and have also filed an application I.A.No.II under Order VII Rule 11 (a) (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC, praying for rejection of the plaint. In the written statement, on merits, it is pleaded that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property and are in possession thereof. In support of the application, the defendants have contended that the mother of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 had filed a suit in O.S.No.597/2007, which was dismissed for default; hence, the present suit is not maintainable. It is also contended that in the present suit, there is no cause of action and whatever cause of action pleaded is only illusory.

6. Further, it is contended that the suit is barred by limitation and that if the right to file the suit accrued for the first time on the date of filing of O.S.No.597/2007, then the filing of the suit itself barred by limitation. Therefore, with these contentions, an application was filed for rejection of the plaint.

7. Upon hearing, the Trial Court has allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court are that on earlier occasion, the mother of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 had filed a suit in O.S.No.597/2007 and the cause of action arose on 15.06.2007, whereas the present suit was filed in the year 2015. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the Trial Court has ordered for rejection of the plaint as the suit is barred by limitation.

8. Upon hearing the arguments from both the learned counsels appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials produced by both the sides, the following point that would arise for my consideration:

“Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the Trial Court i