Dismissed¶183

R. Kadurappa v. S K Madhu

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2025CRP/585/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaint rejection at threshold; Order VII Rule 11(a)-(e) CPC application; Section 115 CPC civil revision petition; suit barred by limitation; limitation as mixed question of law and fact; preliminary issue; partition suit; joint family claim through Government grant to common propositus Kariyanna; sale deeds and partition deed not binding; T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 distinguished; Suresh vs. Baburao Bombay High Court 16.12.2013 distinguished; O.S. No.209/2024 Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Sira, Tumkur district; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Justice V Srishananda; decision 28 October 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:43016.

What did the court decide?

Defendant Nos.1 to 4/revision petitioners are entitled to urge the ground of limitation in the suit in accordance with law; the suit, pending for long, is directed to be expedited.

R. Kadurappa Vs S K Madhu — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Defendant Nos.1 to 4/revision petitioners are entitled to urge the ground of limitation in the suit in accordance with law; the suit, pending for long, is directed to be expedited.

¶183

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S. No.209/2024 (partition suit) could be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (e) CPC on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.

¶162

Court's answer

Where plaintiffs and defendants both lay claim to the suit property based on a grant made by the Government in favour of their common propositus Kariyanna, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold solely on the ground of limitation.

¶163

Ratio / Principle

The question of limitation usually is a mixed question of law and facts and, unless deductible by mathematical precision, cannot be treated as a preliminary issue so as to reject the plaint at the threshold.

¶176

Key takeaways

The trial Court's rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (e) CPC, which is impugned in this revision petition, is upheld.ratio¶178
Defendant Nos.1 to 4/revision petitioners remain entitled to urge the ground of limitation in the suit in accordance with law.ratio¶184

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (V Srishananda J; 28.10.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:43016), CRP No.585/2025 under S.115 CPC: Defendant Nos.1-4 in O.S. No.209/2024 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira) challenged the dismissal of their IA No.4 under Order VII Rule 11(a)-(e) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in a partition suit as barred by limitation. The plaintiffs claimed 1/4th shares through a Government grant to common propositus Kariyanna, and the defendants also claimed under the same grantee's line. Held: where both sides lay claim based on the same Government grant, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on the ground of limitation alone; limitation is ordinarily a mixed question of law and facts and, absent deduction by mathematical precision, cannot be made a preliminary issue for threshing out the plaint. T. Arivandandam (1977) 4 SCC 467 and Suresh v. Baburao (Bom HC, 16.12.2013) were distinguished as resting on facts altogether different (there, successive litigations by an unsuccessful plaintiff; here, only one suit). Revision petition dismissed; defendants free to urge limitation in the suit; trial directed to be expedited.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 585 OF 2025 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R. KADURAPPA S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RETIRED EMPLOYEE

¶9

RATHNAMMA W/O R.KADURAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOUSEMAKER

¶10

K.MANJUNATHA S/O R.KADURAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, EMPLOYEE IN PRIVATE

¶11

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

A.SOWBHAGYA D/O R.KADURAPPA W/O H.R.HARISH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, EMPLOYEE

¶13

THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF SARASWATHI NAGARA, NEAR SHRADI SAI BABA DHYANA MANDIRA, BEHIND APMC, SIRA-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. REVANNA BELLARY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

S K MADHU S/O LATE S.R.KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶19

S.K.KARTHIK RAJ S/O LATE S.R.KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶20

S.K.GOPIKRISHNA S/O LATE S.R.KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶21

RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/O NO.67, 'LAKSHMI NILAYA', RANGANATHA NAGARA, NEAR GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL SIRA-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶22

MAHALAKSHMI S.K. D/O LATE S.R.KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O LAKSHMISHA Y.R.. R/O YALIYURU-572137, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶23

K.RAKESHA S/O KAREHALLI RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶24

K.KIRAN S/O KAREHALLI RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶25

K.RASHMITHA D/O KAREHALLI RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.6, RANGANATHA NAGARA, NEAR GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, SIRA-572 137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶29

R.RANGAIAH S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KUVEMPUNAGARA NEW EXTENSION, BADAVANAHALLI-572112, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶30

KAREHALLI RANGAPPA S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O RANGANATHA NAGARA, NEAR GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, SIRA-572 137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶31

H.S.INDIRAMMA W/O LATE H.M.NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O MARUTHI NILAYA, KESHAVANAGARA LAYOUT, SIRA-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶32

MADHUSHREE D/O PARVATHI BAI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS HOUSEMAKER, R/O KRISHNAMURTHY LAYOUT, (KANEKALLAPPA LAYOUT), SIRA-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

12. KRISHNAMMA

¶36

W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA

¶37

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HOUSEMAKER, R/O JYOTHINAGARA LAYOUT, SIRA-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶38

SOWBHAGYA .P. W/O K.R.CHANDRASHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HOUSEMAKER, R/O KADAJJANAPALYA MANANGI MAJIRE, SIRA-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶39

SHIVAKUMARA S/O LATE KANTHANNA @ KANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PRIVATE WORK, R/O KALIDASANAGARA LAYOUT SIRA-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶40

MEETHYA NAIK S/O CHANDRA NAIK AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PRIVATE WORK, R/O G.RANGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, SHAKADADU POST, SIRA-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶41

SRI K.RANGAIAH, S/O LATE KARELLAPPA, AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.13, SARASWATHINAGAR LAYOUT, NEAR SHIRADI SAIBABA MANDIR, SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

SMT. RATHNAMMA K., W/O SRI RAGHU AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT, (KRISHNAMURTHY LAYOUT), SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶45

SRI SHEKAR S/O NAGARAJAPPA, AGED 38 YEARS, R/AT SEEGALAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWDAGERE HOBLI, NADOORU POST, SIRA TALUK-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶46

SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O SRI NAGARAJU, AGED 59 YEARS, R/AT SEEGALAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWDAGERE HOBLI, NADOORU POST, SIRA TALUK-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶47

SRI PANDURANGAIAH R. S/O SRI RAMACHANDRAIAH T. AGED 38 YEARS, R/AT VEERABOMMANAHALLI, DEVAGIRI VILLAGE, HULIKUNTE HOBLI, YADALADAKU POST, SIRA TALUK-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶48

SMT. KAMALABAI, W/O SRI R.SEETHARAM, AGED 36 YEARS, R/AT OBALAPURA LAMBANIHATTI VILLAGE,

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

J.J.HALLI HOBLI, DINDAVARA POST, HIRIYUR TALUK-572143, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶52

SMT. PADMA B.N. W/O SRI K.N.MUDDARANGAIAH, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT KITTAGALI, SAJJEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK-572132, TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶53

SRI UMESH NAIK H. S/O SRI HANUMA NAIK, AGED 30 YEARS, R/AT KAMALANEYAKANA THANDA, YARADAKATTTE POST, SIRA TALUK-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶54

SMT. U.RATHNAMMA, W/O SRI S.D.IRANNA, AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT SIDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, VEERAGANAHALLI POST, GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶55

SRI SHIVASHANKAR D.K. S/O LATE KADARAPPA, AGED 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.38, SARASWATHI LAYOUT, NEAR SHIRADI SAIBABA MANDIR, SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶56

SRI THIPPESWAMY T.M. S/O MUDDARANGAPPA,

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.39, SARASWATHI LAYOUT, NEAR SHIRADI SAIBABA MANDIR, SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶61

SMT. NETHRAVATHI, C/O SRI KENCHARAYA AGED 34 YEARS, R/O KALIDASA NAGAR BADAVANE, SIRA TOWN, SIRATALUK-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶62

SMT. MANJULA, AGED 36 YEARS, C/O SRI THIPPESWAMY M.R. R/AT SARASWATHINAGAR, NEAR SHIRADI SAIBABA MANDIR, SIRA TOWN, SIRATALUK-572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶63

…RESPONDENTS

¶64

(BY SRI R.S.HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶65

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.4 IN O.S. NO.209/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, DISMISSING THE IA NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) TO (e) OF CPC.

¶66

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶67

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶68

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

ORAL ORDER

¶72

Heard Sri Revanna Bellary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶73

Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the revision petitioners, challenging the validity of the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sira, rejecting the application filed by the revision petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (e) of CPC.

¶74

Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the trial Court.

¶75

Facts in the nutshell which are at most necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶76

First respondent and other respondents being the plaintiffs filed a suit with the following prayer in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property):

¶77

PRAYER

¶78

“Wherefore the plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and

¶79

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

decree in the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants.

¶82

a. for partition of 1/4^th share jointly allotted to plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and 1/4^th share jointly allotted to plaintiff Nos.5 to 7 and defendant No.6 and separate possession of item Nos. 1 to 5 of schedule properties, holding that the following sale deeds and partition deed are not binding on the plaintiffs shares namely:

¶83

1. Sale Deed dated 08.03.2006 registered as document NO.SRA-1-02242/2005-06, stored in CD NO.SRAD 16, dated 03.03.2006, executed by Late Sri Rangashamaiah and others in favor of defendant No.2 in respect of item No.1 of schedule property.

¶84

2. Partition deed dated 21.03.2016, registered a Document No.SRA-1-08157/2015-16, entered into between defendant Nos.1 to 4 in respect of item Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 of schedule properties.

¶85

3. Sale deed dated 28.03.2016, registered as Document No.SRA-1-08354/2015-16, stored in CD No.SRAD 265 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of Site No.6 in item No.1 of schedule property.

¶86

4. Sale deed dated 28.03.2016, registered as Document No.SRA-1- 08364/2015-16, stored in CD NO.SRAD 265 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of Site No.11 in ltem No.1 of scheduie property.

¶87

10 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

5. Sale deed dated 28.03.2016, registered as Document No.SRA-1-08357/2015-16, stored in CD NO.SRAD 265 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of Site No.14 in ltem No.1 of schedule property.

¶91

6. Sale deed dated 28.03.2016, registered as Document No.SRA-1-08346/2015-16, stored in CD No.SRAD 265 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of Site No.15 in ltem No.1 of schedule property.

¶92

7. Sale deed dated 28.03.2016, registered as Document No.SRA-1-08356/2015-16, stored in D No.SRAD 265 executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of Site No.17 in ltem No.1 of schedule property.

¶93

8. Sale deed dated 28.03.2016, registered as Document No.SRA-1-08365/2015-16, stored in CD No.SRAD 265 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of Site No.18 in ltem No.1 of schedule property.

¶94

9. Sale deed dated 06.06.2016, registered as Document No.SRA-1-01180/2015-16, stored in CD NO.SRAD 270 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.8 in respect of Site No.8 in ltem No.1 of schedule property.

¶95

10. Sale deed dated 06.06.2016, registered as Document No.SRA-1-01177/2015-16, stored in CD NO.SRAD 270 executed by defendant No. 2 in

¶96

11 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

favour of defendant No.8 in respect of Site No.9 in Item No.1 of schedule property.

¶100

11. Sale deed dated 29.04.2016, registered as Document No.SRA-1-00485/2016-17, stored in CD NoSRAD 268 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.9 in respect of Site No.7 in item No.1 of schedule property.

¶101

12. Sale deed dated 29.11.2017, registered as Document No.SRA-1-05213/2017-18, stored in CD No.SRAD 305 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.10 in respect of Site No.12 in tem No.1 of schedule property.

¶102

13. Sale deed dated 14.01.2016, registered as Document No.SRA-1- 06435/2015-16, stored in CD NO.SRAD 259 executed by defendant Nos.1& 2 in favour of defendant No.11 in respect of Site No.13 in i1tem No.1 of schedule property.

¶103

14. Sale deed dated 28.03.2016, registered as Document No.SRA-1-08353/2015-16, stored in CD No.SRAD 265 executed by defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in favour of defendant No.12 in respect of Site No.15 in item No.1 of schedule property.

¶104

15. Sale deed dated 28.08.2017, registered as Document No.SRA-1-03057/2017-18, stored in CD NO.SRAD 301 executed by defendant Nos.2 in favour of defendant No.13 in respect of Site No.16 in ltem No.1 of schedule property.

¶105

12 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

16. Sale deed dated 16.12.2017, registered as Document No.SRA-1-05730/2017-18, stored in CD No.SRAD 306 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.14 in respect of Site No.18 in ltem No.1 of schedule property.

¶109

17. Sale deed dated 24.09.2016, registered as Document No.SRA-1-03493/2016-17, stored in CD No.SRAD 277 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.15 in respect of Site No.20 in ltem No.1 of schedule property.

¶110

18. Sale deed dated 17.08.2017, registered as Document No.SRA-1-02891/2017-18, stored in CD No.SRAD 301 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.16 in respect of Site No.21 in item No.1 of schedule property,

¶111

19. Sale deed dated 14.12.2017, registered as Document No.SRA-1-05658/2017-18, stored in CD NO.SRAD 306 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.17 in respect of Site No.22 in item No.1 of schedule property.

¶112

20. Sale deed dated 22.06.2017, registered as Document No.SRA-1- 01671/2017-18, stored in CD NO.SRAD 298 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.18 in respect of Site No.23 in item No.1 of schedule property.

¶113

21. Sale deed dated 08.03.2022, registered as Document NO.SRA-1-08494/2021-22, stored in CD NO.SRAD 1114 executed by defendant No.3 in

¶114

13 -

¶115

NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

favour of defendant No.19 in respect of Site No.40 in ltem No.1 of schedule property.

¶118

22. Sale deed dated 17.07.2020, registered as Document No.SRA-1-01623/2020-21, stored in CD No.SRAD 704 executed by defendant Nos.1& 2 in favour of defendant No.20 in respect of Site No.49 in ltem No.1 of schedule property.

¶119

23. Sale deed dated 04.11.2017, registered as Document No.SRA-1-04546/2017-18, stored in CD No.SRAD 304 executed defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.21 in respect of Site No.5 in item No.1 of schedule property.

¶120

24. Sale deed dated 28.12.2015, registered as Document No.SRA-1-05976/2015-16, stored in CD No.SRAD-258 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.22 in respect of Site No.38 in ltem No.1 of schedule property.

¶121

25. Sale deed dated 20.09.2018, registered as Document No.SRA-1-03778/2017-18,' stored in CD No.SRAD 321 executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.23 in respect of Site No.39 in item No.1 of schedule property.

¶122

26. Sale deed dated 09.04.2018, registered as Document No.SRA-1-00191/2018-19, stored in CD No.SRAD 314 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.24 in respect of Site No.41 in ltem No.1 of schedule property.

¶123

14 -

¶124

NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

27. Sale deed dated 03.05,2020, registered as Document No.SRA-1-00482/2020-21, stored in CD No.SRAD 667 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.25 in respect of Site No.16 in ltem No.1 of schedule property.”

¶127

SCHEDULE

¶128

Item No.1: All that piece and parcel of landed property bearing Sy.No.217/1, (Old Sy.No.50/3) situated at Kallukote Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District, measuring an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas and 7 guntas of A Kharab land and 3 guntas of B Kharab land, presently converted land comprising of Residential Sites No.1 to 57 bounded on the;

¶129

East by : Govt. land and thereafter private lands West by: Parasappa and others land

¶130

North by: Sannapa and others land

¶131

South by : H.Ramaiah and others land.

¶132

Item No.2: All that piece and parcel of house property, bearing house No.6, Assessment No.934/895/855, within the limits of City Municipal Council, Sira Town, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District, measuring East to West:44 feet, North to South :30 feet bounded on the;

¶133

East by: Road,

¶134

West by: Shakunappa house property

¶135

North by:Ramesh house property

¶136

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

South by: Kadurappa house property.

¶139

Item No.3: All that piece and parcel of land bearing New Sy.No.503/2, (old Sy.No.503) measuring an extent of 3 acres situated at Kotta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District, bounded on the

¶140

East by : Land of Dasarahali Bendappa,

¶141

West by : Government Gomal

¶142

North by : Land of M.Shankarappa Bin Mahalingappa

¶143

South by: Land R.S.No.208/1

¶144

Item No.4: All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.208/1, measuring an extent of 27 guntas situated at Kotta Villge, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District.

¶145

Item No.5: All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.208/3, measuring an extent of 3 acres 14 guntas situated at Kotta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District.

¶146

Item No.4 and 5 properties are adjacent to each other having common boundary, bounded on;

¶147

East by : Land of Dasarahalli Bendapa

¶148

West by :Govt. Gomal Land

¶149

North by :R.S.No.503/2 land

¶150

South by: Sharadamma land”

¶151

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶152

HC-KAR

¶153

Plaintiffs laid their claim contending that suit

¶154

property was granted to the great grandfather of the plaintiffs namely, Kariyanna. Plaintiffs claim that the property remained intact and they are the members of the joint family and they are entitled for share in the property.

¶155

Plaint paragraph 20 deals with the cause of action to the suit which reads as under:

¶156

“The cause of action for the suit arose during second week of April 2024, and subsequently on 22.04.2024, 24.04.2024 and 26.04.2024 as and when plaintiffs demanded defendant Nos.1 to 6 to effect partition of the HUF properties and subsequently as and when legal notice dated 01.05.2024 is issued and subsequently as and when defendant Nos.1 to 6 refused to effect partition within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.”

¶157

Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement and additional written statement as the plaint got amended.

¶158

17 -

¶159

NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶160

HC-KAR

¶161

Defendant Nos.1 to 4 claim under one

¶162

Rangashamaiah, whose common prepositous is also Kariyanna. Defendants 1 to 4 also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stating that suit is barred by limitation.

¶163

When plaintiffs and defendants are laying claim on the suit property based on the grant made by the Government in favour of common prepositous Kariyanna, only on the ground of limitation, plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold.

¶164

Suit in the trial Court is also progressed and there is already amendment of the pleadings.

¶165

In support of arguments, Defendants 1 to 4 placed on record the following decisions:

¶166

(i) T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another , reported in (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 467 .

¶167

(ii) Suresh and others vs. Baburao (Thakkubai and others) , Bombay High Court, Date of Decision 16.12.2013.

¶168

Insofar as the judgment of the Aravindanandam’s

¶169

case is concerned, successive litigations were filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff which were sought to be nipped at the

¶170

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:43016 CRP No. 585 of 2025

¶171

HC-KAR

¶172

bud. Here the plaintiffs have filed the present suit alone above and no other suit has been filed.

¶173

So also the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Suresh Kumar and others follows the judgment of the Aravindanandam .

¶174

Facts of the present case are altogether different from the facts involved in Aravindanandam case and the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Suresh Kumar case supra.

¶175

Hence, they are of no avail in advancing the case of the revision petitioner.

¶176

Further, question of limitation usually is a mixed question of law and facts. Unless one can deduced by mathematical precision. Therefore, it cannot be treated as a preliminary issue so as to reject the plaint at the threshold.

¶177

Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the rejection of the application by the trial Court which is impugned in the present revision petition needs to be upheld.

¶178