Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 32692
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
D K Singh, T.M. Nadaf, JJ
SRI. K. N. SRINIVAS – Appellant
Versus
SMT. K. N. CHANDRAKALA – Respondent
RFA No. 1329 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C M Nagabushana, P.B. Raju
For the Respondents: M.S. Varadarajan, M.V. Revansiddaiah, Shobha Bhavikatti, M.R. Rajagopal, Hemanth Kumar G.M, M.S. Arathi N.J
A registered partition deed that has been acted upon by the parties through property transfers and mutation of records cannot be challenged after the expiration of the three-year limitation period.
Headnote:The matter pertains to a suit for declaration, partition, and separate possession filed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The parties had previously executed a registered Partition Deed dated 05.11.2001 to settle joint family properties. While the primary appellant and the first respondent reached an amicable settlement via a compromise petition, the court had to determine the validity of the claim made by a transposed plaintiff who sought to challenge the original partition deed. The court framed the issue as to whether a party who had not initially challenged the partition deed, had acted upon it, and served as an attesting witness to subsequent sale deeds based on that partition, could later challenge its validity. The court reasoned that the suit was clearly barred by limitation, as the challenge was filed in 2010 against a 2001 document, exceeding the three-year statutory limit. Furthermore, the court held that since the parties had acted upon the deed by transferring properties and mutating revenue records (khata), they were estopped from challenging the instrument. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 28.04.2018 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.1450/2010 is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. settlement of disputes through compromise petitions under order xxiii rule 3 of cpc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. effect of a registered partition deed as a final instrument of settlement. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. bar of limitation and estoppel when a partition deed is acted upon. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. setting aside of trial court decree based on limitation and conduct. (Para 14) |
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.04.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.1450/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC), impugning the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2018 passed by the learned XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bangalore City in O.S.No.1450/2010.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The defendant No.2-brother (appellant) and plaintiff No.1-sister (respondent No.1) have settled their dispute amicably. We place on record our appreciation for the efforts made by the learned advocates to the parties to settle the dispute amicably between the parties.
4. The parties have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of the CPC in Court today, setting out the terms of the compromise, which read as under :-
"
UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908;
1. The Appellant and the Respondent No.1 have amicably settled the matter.
2. The Appellant is the Defendant No.2 in the Trial Court in the OS No.1450/2010 on the file of the XV AddI.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.No.3). The Respondent No.1 is the 1st Plaintiff. The Respondent No.2 K.N Mohan was Defendant No.3, transposed himself as plaintiff No.2.
3. The Trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff 1 and 2 granting partition and separate possession of 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties and exhibits P53 to P56, adjusting the sites alienated by the parties.
4. The Defendant No.2 being aggrieved by the said Judgement and Decree dated 28/04/2018, the Appellant/Defendant No.2 has preferred this Appeal.
5. It is submitted that, during the hearing of the Appeal, the matter is settled between the Appellant and Respondent No.1. In the terms of the settlement, the plaintiff/respondent no.1, hereby unconditionally withdraws the suit and claim made by her in the said suit for partition of the schedule properties including the properties covered under Ex.P53 to P56 and accepts that the partition deed dated 05/11/2001 at Exhibit P18 is fair, proper and just and is binding on her and withdraws all the allegations made in the plaint and has no objection for this Hon'ble Court to allow this Appeal and set aside the Judgement and Decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S No.1450/2010 dated 28/04/2018 on the file of the XV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.3).
6. The Appellant without prejudice to the contentions raised in the Appeal and in consideration of the plaintiff No.1/Respondent No.1 consenting and agreeing that the suit O.S No.1450/2010 shall be dismissed and this Appeal be allowed, undertakes to pay to the plaintiff No.1/Respondent No.1 the sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (One Crore Twenty Five Lakh Rupees Only) by way of DD/RTGS within the period of 4 weeks from this day.
7. Recording the above it is prayed by the both the parties, that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the Appeal in terms of this Compromise Petition. Both the parties agree that this Compromise has been entered into of their own free will and without any compulsion from any source."
5
