[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Saroja vs Smt. Venkatamma on 9 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14899-DB
R.F.A. No.2765/2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2765/2025 (PAR/DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAROJA
D/O VENKATAMMA
AND VENKATESHAPPA
W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
BAHAR KHANAM R/A BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
Location: HIGH KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
COURT OF BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. YASHODHA
D/O VENKATAMMA
AND VENKATESHAPPA
W/O SAMUVEL .M
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A NO.VENKATAGIRIKOTE VILLAGE
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
3. SMT. ROHINI K.Y.
D/O VENKATAMMA
AND VENKATESHAPPA
W/O YASHWANTH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/A NO.261, MARANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 157.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14899-DB
R.F.A. No.2765/2025
HC-KAR
4. SMT. MANJULA
D/O NARAYANAMMA
AND LATE MUNIYAPPA
W/O SWARNABABU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A NO.31, G. MUNIYAPPA GARDEN
P.S.K NAIDU ROAD, DODDAGUNTA
COCKS TOWN, FRAZER TOWN
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 157
ALSO AT:
YAMBRAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 112.
5. SRI. PRAKASHA
S/O LATE NARAYANAMMA
AND LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/A YAMBRAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 112.
6. SMT. MADHAVI G.M.
D/O NARAYANAMMA
AND LATE MUNIYAPPA
W/O OBALESH .N
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A NO. AMBAJI DURGA
DODDA MUNIMANGALA, KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-563125.
ALSO RESIDING AT:
KADRIPURA VILLAGE, VEMAGAL HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563116.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA K, ADV.,)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14899-DB
R.F.A. No.2765/2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT. VENKATAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
2. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O VENKATAMMA
AND LATE VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
3. SRI. VASUDEVA
S/O VENKATAMMA
AND LATE VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT. YAMBRAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 112.
4. SRI. MUNIRAJU
S/O VENKATAMMA
AND LATE VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE AND HOBLI
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLPURA DISTRICT-562 102.
5. SRI. A. RAFI @ A. RAFI AHAMMED BHASHA
S/O S.A. RAHIM
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT JALAPPA ROAD, TALUK OFFICE ROAD
DEVANAHALLI TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
6. SRI. HARISH .S
S/O LATE D.M. SRINIVASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:14899-DB
R.F.A. No.2765/2025
HC-KAR
7. SMT. CHANDRAKALA
W/O HARISH .S
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.6 & 7 ARE
R/AT DODDAJALA GRAMA, JALA HOBLI
YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562157.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UDAY K.S ADV., FOR C/R6)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE
11(a) AND (d) IN O.S.NO.557/2024 DATED 08.09.2025 ON THE
FILES OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
DEVANAHALLI, C/C II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT
DEVANAHALLI ALLOW THE APPEAL AND CALL FOR RECORDS
FROM THE TRIAL COURT AND RETURN BACK THE MATTER TO
TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER THE PLAINT FOR PARTITION AND
OTHER RELIEFS AS THAT MAY BE GRANTED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:14899-DB
R.F.A. No.2765/2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the plaintiffs
challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2025
passed in O.S.No.557/2024 by the Court of III Additional
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli (for short 'the
Trial Court').
2. The parties are referred to as per their
rankings before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this
appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit in
O.S.No.557/2024 seeking partition and declaration that
the sale deeds dated 23.01.2007 and 18.06.2007 are not
binding on the plaintiffs and other reliefs. In the said suit,
the defendant Nos.6 and 7 filed an application seeking
rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint did not
disclose a cause of action and was filed beyond the period
NC: 2026:KHC:14899-DB
HC-KAR
of limitation. The Trial Court, on consideration of the
plaint averments, submissions and the provisions of law,
proceeded to allow the application and rejected the plaint
on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of
limitation. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.
4. Sri.Balakrishna K, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants-plaintiffs submits that the Trial Court
has committed a grave error in allowing the application
filed by the defendant Nos.6 and 7, without appreciating
the material on record in its proper perspective. It is
submitted that the appellants were not aware about the
sale deeds dated 23.01.2007 and 18.06.2007 and that
their signatures were taken on the same under a false
pretext that it was required for certain loan documents. It
is further submitted that the appellants filed the said suit
as soon as they were aware of the said sale deeds and the
limitation is to be considered from the date of such
knowledge. It is also submitted that the Trial Court has
failed to consider the fact that the limitation in a suit is a
NC: 2026:KHC:14899-DB
HC-KAR
mixed question of law and facts and the same ought to be
decided in the Trial. It is contended that the suit is for
partition as well as declaration, which is required to be
heard on merits after a full-fledged trial. Hence, he seeks
to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, Sri.Uday.K.S, learned counsel for
the respondent No.6 supports the impugned order of the
Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court has rightly
appreciated the law on the point and proceeded to reject
the plaint on the ground of limitation, which does not call
for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the
appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the
respondent No.6 and meticulously perused the material
available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced on both the
sides.
NC: 2026:KHC:14899-DB
HC-KAR
7. The point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and
decree calls for any interference?"
8. The material on record indicates that the
plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.557/2024 seeking for
partition and declaration that the sale deeds dated
23.01.2007 and 18.06.2007 are not binding on the
plaintiffs and other reliefs. In the said suit, the defendant
Nos.6 and 7 filed an application seeking rejection of plaint
on the ground that the suit did not disclose a cause of
action and was also barred by limitation. The Trial Court,
on considering the plaint averments and the provisions of
law, proceeded to allow the application and reject the
plaint.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants-plaintiffs is that the sale deeds were
fraudulently obtained and that the period of limitation
ought to start from the date of discovery of the sale deeds
NC: 2026:KHC:14899-DB
HC-KAR
and not from the date of execution of the sale deeds since
it is a mixed question of law and facts requiring trial.
However, the Trial Court has recorded a clear finding that
the plaintiffs themselves are signatories to the sale deeds
and the plaintiffs, after a lapse of over 15 years cannot
turn around and contend that they were unaware of the
said sale deeds. Moreover, the sale deeds in question
being registered documents, a mere assertion that they
were unaware of the said registered sale deeds cannot
justify the delay in filing the suit. To appreciate the same,
it would be useful to place reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DILBOO Vs.
DHANRAJ AND OTHERS1, wherein it was held as under:
"20. ....Whenever a document is registered the date
of registration becomes the date of deemed
knowledge. In other cases where a fact could be
discovered by due diligence then deemed knowledge
would be attributed to the plaintiff because a party
cannot be allowed to extend the period of limitation
by merely claiming that he had no knowledge."
10. It would also be useful to refer to the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SURAJ LAMP
(2000) 7 SCC 702
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14899-DB
HC-KAR
AND INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. (2) Vs. STATE OF
HARYANA2, wherein it was held as under:
15. In the earlier order dated 15-5-2009 [(2009)
7 SCC 363 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 126] , the objects
and benefits of registration were explained and we
extract them for ready reference: (SCC p. 367, paras
15-18)
"15...
16....
17..........Registration of a document gives notice
to the world that such a document has been
executed.
18. Registration provides safety and security to
transactions relating to immovable property, even if
the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity
and public exposure to documents thereby
preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to
transactions and execution of documents.
Registration provides information to people who
may deal with a property, as to the nature and
extent of the rights which persons may have,
affecting that property. In other words, it enables
people to find out whether any particular property
with which they are concerned, has been subjected
to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are
the person(s) presently having right, title, and
interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form
and perpetuate documents which are of legal
importance or relevance by recording them, where
people may see the record and enquire and
ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land
is concerned what obligations exist with regard to
them. It ensures that every person dealing with
immovable property can rely with confidence upon
the statements contained in the registers
(maintained under the said Act) as a full and
(2012) 1 SCC 656
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14899-DB
HC-KAR
complete account of all transactions by which the
title to the property may be affected and secure
extracts/copies duly certified."
11. The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that the
registration of a document serves as a deemed and
constructive notice, which can be ascertained by
undertaking due diligence. In the instant case, the
contention of the plaintiff that he was unaware of the sale
deeds cannot be accepted purely because the said sale
deeds in question are registered documents, which could
have been ascertained by due diligence. Admittedly, the
registered sale deeds were executed on 23.01.2007 and
18.06.2007, whereas the suit filed by the appellants for
partition and declaration that the sale deeds are not
binding, was on 31.05.2024 i.e. after 16 years, which is
beyond the period of limitation provided for a suit for
declaration i.e. 3 years.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants also
contends that the suit is a partition suit that requires
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14899-DB
HC-KAR
adjudication. However, such a contention holds no merit
as the property transferred in the said sale deeds is also
the subject matter of the property sought to be
partitioned. It is clear that the land was granted to the
grandfather of the plaintiffs, which is considered to be a
self-acquired property and he sold the same to the
defendants. Hence, in view of the conveyance of the said
properties, there is no cause of action to file a suit for
partition since there is no independent right to seek
partition of the said property.
13. Hence, we are of the considered view that the
Trial Court has rightly appreciated the averments in the
plaint, provision of law and held that there is no cause of
action and that the suit is barred by limitation. The said
finding of the Trial Court does not warrant any
interference.
14. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is
devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14899-DB
HC-KAR
Consequently, the pending interlocutory application stands
disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
