Revision petition against rejection of an Order VII Rule 11(d) application to reject a partition plaint as time-barred. The court held that limitation for excluded coparceners runs under Article 110 (12 years), and no declaration against a coparcener's sale deed is needed in a partition suit; the plaint could not be rejected.
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:45759 CRP No. 437 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.437 OF 2024 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SRI THIPPESWAMY .T S/O. PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. GOLLARAHATTI, MALLAPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:45759 CRP No. 437 of 2024
BRAMHA SAMUDRA POST, KALYANADURGA TALUK, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE – 515 761.
KALYANADURGAM TALUK, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE – 515 761.
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.18 IN O.S.NO.571/2011 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA., REJECTING THE IA NO.18 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the trial Court, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:45759 CRP No. 437 of 2024
that any sale deed executed by one coparcener does not bind the share of another coparcener. The alienation by one coparcener only binds their individual share and does not, by default, affect the undivided share of other coparceners unless consented to by all. Consequently, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, as the plaintiff’s claim for partition and separate possession is not barred merely due to the execution of the sale deed.
Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE
YKL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit for partition challenging a coparcener's sale deed is barred by limitation under Article 58 or Article 110 of the Limitation Act.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Thippeswamy T
Smt. Acchamma
Smt. Susheelamma
Smt. Hanumakka
Sri Appanna
Sri Govinda Reddy
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
