MANU/SC/0433/2025

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 434

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4718 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2137 of
2025) and Civil Appeal No. 4719 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 2032 of 2025)
Decided On: 02.04.2025
Uma Devi and Ors. Vs. Anand Kumar and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sudhanshu Prakash, AOR, Anisha Agarwal, Sharath
B.K., Advs., Abhishek Gupta, AOR, Dasharath T.M., Rohini Musa, Zafar Inayat, Praful
Shukla and Nikhil Kumar Singh, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Nuli & Nuli, AOR,Saket Gogia, Gauri Pande, Sheetal
Maggon, Mansingh, Advs., Dhawesh Pahuja and Rahul Gupta, AORs
Case Category:
PERSONAL LAW MATTERS - MATTERS RELATING TO PARTITION
JUDGMENT
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
1. Leave granted.
2 . The Appellants before this Court are Defendants in a suit for partition filed by the
Plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein) in the year 2023 under O.S. No. 6768/2023.
The parties will be referred to as their position in the Trial Court.
3 . The Defendants moved an application Under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter 'CPC'), seeking return of the plaint on the grounds that the suit
was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation as well as on other grounds. The
Trial Court allowed the application and dismissed the suit.
4 . Thereafter, Plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1-5 before us) filed an appeal before High
Court Under Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure where High Court (hereinafter
'appellate court') vide order dated 08.01.2025 held that there were triable issues in the
case and it could not be dismissed merely on an application Under Order 7 Rule 11
Code of Civil Procedure and consequently allowed the appeal, remanding the matter
back to the Trial Court.
5 . This case pertains to a civil dispute concerning an immovable property situated at
Pattangere Village, Kengeri, Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The Plaintiffs and Defendants
belong to the same larger family.
6 . The original owner of the property was Boranna, who passed away leaving behind

05-06-2025 (Page 1 of 5) www.manupatra.com Vruksha Legal

four sons: Nanjundappa, Siddappa, Basappa, and Shivanna. The suit for partition was
filed by the grandchildren of Shivanna on 16.10.2023, alleging that the family owned
ancestral joint immovable property and that their legitimate share had been denied.
Consequently, they sought partition, separate possession and allotment of their
legitimate share.
7 . The four sons of Boranna, namely Nanjundappa, Siddappa, Basappa and Shivanna,
had their respective families. Shivanna had five children namely, Mangalamma,
Maribasamma, Drakshayanamma, Shadaksharaiah and Varaprasada. While Basappa had
six children namely, Ganganna, Panchaksharaiah, Mandevappa, Shanthappa, Nagarju
and Prakash. Nanjundappa and Siddappa also had a family of their own. The Plaintiffs
are the children of Mangalamma. The Defendants in the suit represent the remaining
family (the Appellants herein are the representatives of Shanthappa).
8 . The Defendants raised a primary objection, asserting that the property, originally
owned by Boranna, had already been partitioned by way of an oral partition in the year
1968 amongst his four sons, through a family settlement. We have gone through the
revenue records, as placed before us, and it is evident that this settlement was indeed
acted upon. The revenue records indicate the names of each of Boranna's four sons and
also that the property had been mutated in their respective names, the reason assigned
for the change in the revenue records is the family partition of the year 1968.
Additionally, the Defendants contended that, based on the terms of the family
settlement, the daughter in law of Shivanna and other family members had disposed
their property through registered sale deeds executed as far back as 1978. It is
therefore clear that the Plaintiffs had full knowledge of this transaction.
9. The Defendants further argued that the Plaintiffs were effectively challenging a sale
deed executed by their own aunt. Since the suit for partition was filed without
contesting the sale deed, that itself was legally untenable. Moreover, a registered sale
deed constitutes constructive notice to the world unless it is a case of fraud, coercion,
or minority and therefore there has to be a presumption in law that the Plaintiffs had
knowledge of the sale deed.
10. The Trial Court, considering these facts, allowed the application Under Order 7 Rule
11 Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed the suit, finding no cause of action for filing
the suit. However, the appellate court found that there were triable issues that required
consideration. The appellate court was of the opinion that the Plaintiffs had a legitimate
claim over the joint family properties, and in the absence of any notice to the Plaintiffs
regarding the partition, the suit was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh
consideration.
11. The sole argument advanced by the Respondents/Plaintiffs is that the suit was only
for partition, filed in the year 2023 and was within the limitation period as the limitation
will be counted from the date of their knowledge of the sale deed. However, upon
examining the pleadings before the Trial Court and appellate court, it is evident that the
Plaintiff failed to address the crucial question of when they became aware of the
registered sale deeds. If they had prior knowledge of the sale deeds, they failed to
specify the exact date of such knowledge. Additionally, the pleadings suggest
suppression of essential facts by the Plaintiffs.
1 2 . In the case at hand, partition took place way back in the year 1968, which is
evident from the revenue record entries. The suit is filed in the year 2023, i.e. after a
period of 55 years. Further, many of the family members had executed registered sale

05-06-2025 (Page 2 of 5) www.manupatra.com Vruksha Legal

deeds in the year 1978. These sale deeds have been attached, and on perusal it is
observed that these were in fact registered sale deeds. A registered document provides
a complete account of a transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court
in the case of Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr.
MANU/SC/1222/2011 : 2011:INSC:739 : (2012) 1 SCC 656 held as under:
Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has
been executed. 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 complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may
be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.
1 3 . Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed that the
predecessors of the Plaintiffs had notice of the registered sale deeds (executed in
1978), flowing from the partition that took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them
being registered documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma, these sale deeds have not
been challenged, neither has partition been sought. Thus, the suit (filed in the year
2023) of the Plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The Plaintiffs cannot reignite their
rights after sleeping on them for 45 years.
14. The learned Senior Counsel for the Defendants/Appellants, Mr. Sundaram, relied
upon the decision of this Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors. v. Shrimant
Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Anr. ( MANU/SC/1382/2024)
to substantiate the contention that the suit was barred by limitation. It was observed as
follows:
16. When a portion of the property has been conveyed by court auction and
registered in the first instance and when another portion has been conveyed by
a registered sale deed in 1952, there is a constructive notice from the date of
registration and the presumption Under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property
Act, comes into operation. The possession, in the present case, also has been
rested with the Appellant before several decades, which operates as notice of
title.
17. XXX
18. Continuing further with the plea of limitation, the Courts below have held
that the question of the suit being barred by limitation can be decided at the
time of trial as the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts.
Though the question of limitation generally is mixed question of law and facts,

05-06-2025 (Page 3 of 5) www.manupatra.com Vruksha Legal

 when upon meaningful reading of the plaint, the court can come to a conclusion
that under the given circumstances, after dissecting the vices of clever drafting
creating an illusion of cause of action, the suit is hopelessly barred and the
plaint can be rejected Under Order VII Rule 11.
1 5 . In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal MANU/SC/0485/2017 :
2017:INSC:366 : (2017) 13 SCC 174, this Court laid down the scope of Order 7 Rule 11
Code of Civil Procedure:
The plaint can be rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in
the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power Under
Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure can be exercised by the Court at any
stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding
the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and
meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious
and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should
exercise power Under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. Since the
power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is
drastic, the conditions enumerated Under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil
Procedure to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly
adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out
whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred
by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is
barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of
the Defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the
Defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when, the allegations made in the
plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that
the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application
for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power Under Order VII Rule
11 of Code of Civil Procedure can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint
has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at
the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.
1 6 . In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali MANU/SC/0508/2020 :
2020:INSC:450 : (2020) 7 SCC 366, it is stated as under -
The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of
action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation Under Rule 11(d), the
Court would not permit the Plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in
the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham
litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.
17. In our considered opinion, the Trial Court had rightly allowed the application of the
Defendants/Appellants Under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, holding that the
suit filed by the Plaintiffs was a meaningless litigation, that it did not disclose a proper
cause of action and was barred by limitation. There were thus no justifiable reasons for
the appellate court to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court.
18. The suit was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the impugned order dated
08.01.2025 passed by the High Court is set aside, and both these appeals are hereby
allowed.
19. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
05-06-2025 (Page 4 of 5) www.manupatra.com Vruksha Legal
 © Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

05-06-2025 (Page 5 of 5) www.manupatra.com Vruksha Legal