Single Regular First Appeal dismissed. The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's order dismissing the suit for partition as barred by limitation under Article 109 of the Limitation Act due to a lapse of over 50 years since possession was taken.
Appeal dismissed; Judgment and decree of 2.2.2023 affirmed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1338 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by BHARATHI S
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANJANAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560062
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 19 ARE R/AT NO. 10, 2nd CROSS, 6th MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560009
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V HARIDAS BHAT AND D SELVA KUMAR., ADVOCATES FOR R21 (NOTICES NOT YET ORDERED))
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.02.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO. 8399/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU, (C/C III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY POONACHA. J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by plaintiff No.1 challenging the judgment and decree dated 2.2.2023 passed in OS No.8399/2016 by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (C/C III Additional City Civil and Sessions
NC: 2024:KHC:10883-DB RFA No. 1338 of 2023
Judge, Bengaluru)1 , whereunder the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed with costs.
1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’
property. The Trial Court has noticed that the suit property was sold way back in the year 1965 and the alienee has taken possession of the same in the year 1965 itself and hence, there
is a laps of almost 51 years in filing the suit. The Trial Court has also noticed that the plaintiff herself has admitted in the
cross-examination that she is not aware as to who is in possession of the property and that the suit is filed only to extract the money.
findings recorded by the Trial Court are contrary to any specific material on record and is liable to be interfered by this Court in the present appeal.
ORDER
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru), is affirmed.
No costs.
SD/JUDGE
SD/JUDGE
nd
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for partition is barred by limitation under Article 109 of the Limitation Act given the alienee has taken possession in 1965.
Whether the findings recorded by the Trial Court regarding the dismissal of the suit are contrary to material on record.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RATHNAMMA D/O LATE CHINNAPPA
SUDHARANI D/O LATE RAJANNA
GOUTHAMI D/O LATE RAJANNA
D RAMASWAMY
SUDHARANI
DONDUSA GOLD THREAD FACTORY
C.M. POONACHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
