SMT. UMA DEVI AND ORS.versusSRI. ANAND KUMAR AND ORS.

                  [2025] 4 S.C.R. 521 : 2025 INSC 434

                        Smt. Uma Devi and Ors.
                                   v.
                       Sri. Anand Kumar and Ors.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 4718 of 2025)
                                   02 April 2025
           [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was correct in remanding the matter back
       to the trial court, when trial court had allowed the application of
       the defendants/appellants u/Or.7 r.11 CPC, and dismissed the suit
       for partition filed by the plaintiffs in 2023, holding that the suit did
       not disclose proper cause of action and was barred by limitation.

                                    Headnotes†
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.7 r.11 – Return of plaint –
       Limitation – Plaintiffs-respondents, grandchildren of the
       original owner filed suit for partition in 2023 seeking partition
       of the ancestral joint immovable property – Defendants-
       appellants, remaining family members filed application u/o.7
       r.11 seeking return of plaint as suit was barred by limitation –
       Case of the appellants that the property had already been
       partitioned in 1968 amongst the sons and had been mutated,
       and family members including aunt of the respondents had
       disposed their property through registered sale deeds in
       1978 – Trial court allowed the application and dismissed the
       suit finding no cause of action – High Court holding that there
       were triable issues allowed the appeal of the respondents and
       remanded the matter back to the trial court:
       Held: Plaintiff failed to address the crucial question of when they
       became aware of the registered sale deeds – Pleadings suggest
       suppression of essential facts by the plaintiffs – Partition took place
       way back in 1968 and suit is filed in 2023, after a period of 55
       years – Many of the family members had executed registered sale
       deeds in 1978 which have been attached – Registered document
       provides a complete account of a transaction to any party interested
       in the property – Predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the

* Author
522                                                               [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 plaintiff’s father, these sale deeds
       were not challenged, nor partition was sought – Thus, the suit filed
       in 2023 by the plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law – Plaintiffs
       cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years –
       Trial court rightly allowed the application of the appellants u/or.7
       r.11 holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a meaningless
       litigation, it did not disclose a proper cause of action and was barred
       by limitation – No justifiable reasons for the appellate court to have
       remanded the matter to the trial court – Impugned judgment set
       aside – Or.41 r.1. [Paras 11-13, 17, 18]

                                 Case Law Cited
       Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr. [2011]
       11 SCR 848 : (2012) 1 SCC 656; Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust &
       Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj
       Bhonsle & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844; Madanuri Sri Rama
       Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [2017] 5 SCR 294 : (2017) 13 SCC
       174; Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali [2020] 5 SCR 694 :
       (2020) 7 SCC 366 – referred to.

                                   List of Acts
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

                                List of Keywords
       Return of plaint; Suit barred by limitation; Suit for partition;
       Ancestral joint immovable property; Oral partition; Registered sale
       deed; Sleeping on rights; Remand of the matter; Cause of action;
       Limitation; Mutation; Suppression of essential facts; Meaningless
       litigation.

                               Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4718 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2025 of the High Court
       of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA No. 2374 of 2024
       With
       Civil Appeal No. 4719 of 2025
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         523

         Smt. Uma Devi and Ors. v. Sri. Anand Kumar and Ors.


                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     C.A. Sundaram, Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Advs., Abhishek Gupta,
     Ms. Roshini Musa, Dashrath T. M., Zafar Inayat, Praful Shukla,
     Nikhil Kumar Singh, Sudhanshu Prakash, Ms. Anisha Agarwal,
     Ms. Divija Mahajan, Kanishk Sinha.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Ms. Akhila Wali, Nanda Kumar K B, Abhishekh Singh, Ms. Sunayna
     Agarwal, Santhosh N, M/s. Nuli & Nuli, Saket Gogia, Ms. Gauri
     Pande, Ms. Sheetal Maggon, Mansingh, Dhawesh Pahuja, Mrs.
     Vandana Gupta, Rahul Gupta.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                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 CPC 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 CPC 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.
524                                                           [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


6.     The original owner of the property was Boranna, who passed away
       leaving behind 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.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                             525

         Smt. Uma Devi and Ors. v. Sri. Anand Kumar and Ors.


10. The Trial Court, considering these facts, allowed the application
    under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC 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.
12. 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 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 & Anr. (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
526                                                           [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


          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”.
13. 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 & Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje
    Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844)
    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.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                            527

         Smt. Uma Devi and Ors. v. Sri. Anand Kumar and Ors.


           17. XXX
           18. Continuing further with the plea of limitation, the Courts
           below have held that 23 (1977) 4 SCC 467 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, 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”.
15. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) 13
    SCC 174, this court laid down the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC :
           “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, CPC 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, CPC. 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 CPC 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
528                                                               [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


               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 V11 Rule 11
               of CPC 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”.
16. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (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 CPC,
    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.

       Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain