Revision against rejection of defendant no.8's application to reject the plaint in a partition suit as time-barred under Article 110 of the Limitation Act. The High Court held that on plaint averments alone no bar of limitation was evident and declined to interfere, directing expeditious trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12576 CRP No. 100093 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100093 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SMT. HUSENBI W/O. DASTAGEERSAB MULLA, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE – 582 101, R/O: NEAR MAILARLINGESHWAR, TEMPLE, BETAGERI, TQ AND DIST: GADAG – 582101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12576 CRP No. 100093 of 2024
TQ & DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231.
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: GOURI ANGAL, KOPPAL, TQ: & DIST: KOPPAL - 583 231.
(BY SRI T.M.NADAF, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOPPAL IN OS NO. 50/2020 DATED 15.06.2024, THEREBY REJECTING I.A NO. 10 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO. 8/ PETITIONER HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A. NO. 10 FILE UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(A)(D) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 15.06.2024 passed by Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Koppal, in O.S.No.50/2020 on I.A.No.7, this revision petition is filed.
sale deed dated 05.05.1960. Referring to principles of Mohommaden Law by Mulla, it was submitted, limitation for suit by an heir for recovery of share would begin to run from date of any express ouster or denial of title. It was submitted, alienation of any of suit properties would trigger limitation. Since, suit was filed in year 2020 after nearly 60 years, suit would be hopelessly barred by limitation prescribed under Article 110 of Limitation Act, 1963. It was submitted, though on said ground, petitioner herein had filed I.A.no.10 under Order VII Rule 11(a)(d) R/w. 151 of CPC, under impugned order. Trial Court had rejected same wholly untenable grounds. Therefore, he sought for allowing petition.
appreciation of contention in application only plaint averments can be taken into account. For said purposes, every assertion in plaint has to be presumed to be correct. Admittedly, application filed by petitioner is for rejection of plaint on ground of limitation. Though, learned counsel sought to contend that period of limitation would begin to run from date of alienation by one of legal heirs of propositus, in present instance, sale deed is dated 05.05.1960. Perusal of Article 110 of Limitation Act would indicate that limitation of 12 years would begin to run from date of accrual of knowledge of said sale.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12576 CRP No. 100093 of 2024
interfere. In view of above circumstances, Trial Court is directed to expedite disposal of suit, without being influence
by observations made in this order.
Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE
EM,VB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaint in the partition suit could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation given the propositus died about 65-75 years ago and an heir sold property in 1960.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Husenbi W/o. Dastageersab Mulla
Smt. Shainazbegum W/o. Mardansab Doctor
Sri Hussain S/o. Mardansab Doctor
Haseenabegum D/o. Mardansab Doctor
Ravi V.Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
