-4-

CRP No. 100095 of 2021

ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners are defendants No.1 to 3 in O.S. No. 17/2020

on the file of the learned II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hubballi

(for short ‘the trial Court’) and they are aggrieved by the impugned

order dated 09.11.2021 passed in I.A. No. III. The petitioners shall

be referred to as defendants and the respondents shall be referred

to as plaintiffs for the sake of convenience.

2. I.A. No. III was filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule

11(a) and (d) read with Sec. 151 of CPC praying the trial Court to

reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation by

reason of Sec. 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said application

having been rejected, the defendants are before this Court.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Shreevatsa, appearing for the

defendants would submit that the plaintiffs are the full sisters of

defendants No.2 and 3 and they filed the instant suit seeking

partition and separate possession of the share of each of the

plaintiffs in the suit property. The plaintiffs have also sought for a

declaration that the registered relinquishment deed dated

CRP No. 100095 of 2021

29.12.2004 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendants No.1

to 3 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs.

4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that earlier the linear

descendents of Sri Narayansa had filed O.S. No. 178/2005 wherein

all the parties herein were arrayed as defendants, including the

plaintiffs. Although the present suit schedule property bearing CTS

No. 470/1 situated at Ward No.3 ad-measuring 3 acres 15 guntas,

5 sq.yards situated at Marian Timmasagar village, Karwar Road,

Hubballi, was also part of the suit schedule properties in O.S. No.

178/2005, nevertheless the claim in respect of that property was

given up. The plaintiffs herein were placed exparte and they did

not contest the suit. However, after the judgment dated 16.02.2016

was rendered in O.S. No. 178/2005, original plaintiffs in O.S. No.

178/2005 filed R.F.A. No. 100186/2016 before this Court. In the

said appeal the plaintiffs sought to file cross-objections. It was

sought to be contended at the hands of the plaintiffs that they came

to know about the fraud that was played upon them by defendants

No. 5, 10 and 11, i.e., their full brothers and uncle in getting a

relinquishment deed executed in their favour on misrepresenting

that they were called to the Sub-Registrar’s office stating that they
 -6-

CRP No. 100095 of 2021

had to execute a power of attorney. However, objections were filed

to the cross objections, mainly contending that Court fee was

required to be paid as was paid on the plaint. The plaintiffs were

directed to pay Court fee. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs approached the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 33257/2017. Observations

were made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and liberty was granted to

the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit and get their rights adjudicated.

Taking note of the said orders passed by the apex Court, this Court

also permitted the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit. Consequently, O.S.

No. 17/2020 was filed at the hands of the plaintiffs.

5. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore contend that the

plaintiffs cannot deny the fact that they knew about execution of the

relinquishment deed dated 29.12.2004, apparently as far back as

2016 when it was openly contended by the plaintiffs that they came

to know about the fraudulent execution of the relinquishment deed

and therefore they sought to file cross objection in R.F.A. Cr. Ob.

No. 100005/2016. It is therefore the contention of the defendants

that when admittedly the plaintiffs expressed that they came to

know about the relinquishment deed in the year 2016, after the

judgment and decree was rendered in O.S. No. 178/2005, the

CRP No. 100095 of 2021

cause of action for seeking a declaration that the registered

relinquishment deed dated 29.12.2004 is not binding on the share

of the plaintiffs commenced at least in the year 2016. Therefore,

having regard to Sec.27 of the Limitation Act read with Article 59

where the period of limitation prescribed is three years, even from

the date of knowledge, the suit is barred by limitation.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiffs seeks to support

the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the

petition papers, this Court finds that the question that arises for

consideration in this writ petition is, whether in a suit for partition

between the family members, the suit could be rejected on the

ground that it is time barred, more so, when a declaration is

sought by the plaintiffs against a registered instrument?

8. It would be relevant to notice that it is a settled position of law

that when a document is valid, no question arises of its

cancellation. However, when a document is void ab initio, a decree

for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is

non est in the eye of law, as it would be a nullity. This position has
 -8-

CRP No. 100095 of 2021

been reiterated in Prem Singh & Ors. Vs. Birbal & Ors. (2006) 5

SCC 353 and it was further held that Sec. 31 of the Specific Relief

Act, 1963 refers to both void and voidable documents. It provides

for a discretionary relief. It was further held that Article 59 of the

Limitation Act applies specially when a relief is claimed on the

ground or fraud or mistake. It only encompasses within its fold

fraudulent transactions which are voidable transaction. Article 59

would be attracted when coercion, undue influence,

misappropriation or fraud which the plaintiff asserts is required to

be proved. Article 59 would apply to the case of such instruments.

It would, therefore, apply where a document is prima facie valid. It

would not apply only to instruments which are presumptively

invalid.

9. What is very apparent from the plaint and the prayer made

therein is that the plaintiffs, being the female members of the joint

family have sought for declaration of their rightful share in the joint

family properties. The other prayer is to declare that the

relinquishment deed dated 29.12.2004 executed by the plaintiffs in

favour of their brothers, defendants No.2 and 3 is not binding on

the share of the plaintiffs. Adverting to such a situation where there

CRP No. 100095 of 2021

is more than one prayer made in a plaint, the question as to

whether under such circumstances by invoking the provisions

contained under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, whether the Court

could reject the plaint as a whole or whether a portion of the

pleading or prayer could be stuck down under the Rule fell for

consideration at the hands of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Roop Lal Sathi Vs. Nachhattar Singh Gill reported in

(1982) 3 SCC 487; D.Ramachandran Vs. R.V. Janakiraman

(1999) 3 SCC 267; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Assistant Charity

Commissioner (2004) 3 SCC 137; Saleem Bhai Vs. State of

Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557; I.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Debts Recovery

Appellate Tribunal (1998) 2 SCC 70; T. Arivandanam Vs.

T.V.Satypal (1977) 4 SCC 467 and Balasaria Construction (P)

Ltd. Vs. Hanuman Seva Trust (2006) 5 SCC 658. These

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were noticed by a

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Merit

Magnum Construction Vs. Nand Kumar Anant Baity & Ors.

reported in 2013 SCC Online Bombay 1361 and it was held that

there can be no rejection of only a part of the plaint. It was noticed

that in Balasaria Construction (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

Court noticed the conflict of opinion on the issue whether the plaint
 - 10 -

CRP No. 100095 of 2021

can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that

it is hit by ‘Law of Limitation’ and in view of the importance of the

issue, made a reference to a bench of three Hon’ble Judges. The

Larger Bench, in the case of Balasaria Construction which was

decided on 19.10.2005 recorded the submission of the learned

counsels that it is not the case of either side that as an absolute

proposition an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC can

never be based on the law of limitation. However, such an action

will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Where the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact or

where a conclusion is not disearnable from the statement that the

suit is barred by limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected by

resorting to Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC. In the case before the

Bombay high Court, it was noticed that on the basis of the

averments of the plaintiff it was found that the plaintiff pleaded that

the conveyance dated 18.08.1989 is void and barred or

void ab initio and that on the basis of such conveyance the

plaintiffs were never divested of their title to the property, which

continue to vest in them. Having regard to such averments in the

plaint, it was held that it shall have to be accepted as correct only

for the purposes of deciding the application under Order VII Rule
 - 11 -

CRP No. 100095 of 2021

11 CPC and therefore it was held that it is not a fit case to reject

the plaint as being barred by law of limitation by resorting to Order

VII Rule 11(d) CPC. It was held that the merits and demerits of the

defences pleas could not have been gone into at the stage of

deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11. The issue of

limitation at the highest was an arguable one. The issue, however,

raises mixed question of law and fact.

10. In Ranganayakamma and another Vs. K.S.Prakash and

others reported in (2008) 15 SCC 673 it was held that illegality of a

contract need not be pleaded, but, when a contract is stated to be

voidable by reason of any coercion, misrepresentation or fraud, the

particulars thereto are required to be pleaded. It is a well settled

principle of law that a void document is not required to be avoided

whereas a voidable document must be. It was held that a deed of

release for a consideration is a transaction. When, thus, a release

is made for consideration, the particulars of consideration and other

particulars which are required to be awarded in the deed are

essential elements thereto. Relinquishment of a property by a sister

in favour of her brother for a consideration or absence of it, stands

on a different footing. Section 25 of the Contract Act must be read

CRP No. 100095 of 2021

and construed having regard to the fact situation obtaining in the

cases. It was held that even in proceeding on the basis that the

consideration of Re.1/- is shown in the deed of partition is no

consideration in the eye of law, the question remains is as to

whether a partition deed would be violative of Section 25 of the

Contract Act for want of consideration. It was held that in a suit for

partition, one of the question is as to whether a document had been

executed out of love and affection or not. It was held that

consideration even in the Indian context would mean reasonably

equivalent or other valuable benefit passed on by the promisor to

the promise or by the transferor to the transferee. Applicability of

Article 65 or 110 of the Limitation Act, on the one hand and Article

59 thereto, on the other, was held to be depending upon the factual

situation involved in a case. A decree for setting aside the

document may be sought for in terms of Section 31 of the Specific

Relief Act. Applicability of Article 59 would depend upon the

question as to whether deed was required to be set aside or not.

11. As noticed in the beginning, the petitioners/ defendants have

sought to contend that in view of the fact that the plaintiffs knew

about the deed of relinquishment as far back as 2016, in the

CRP No. 100095 of 2021

proceedings before this Court in R.F.A. No. 100186/2016 and the

suit is filed after lapse of more than three years, the prayer seeking

a declaration regarding the deed of relinquishment is time barred.

However, it is noticeable that Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides for

rejection of the plaint and not rejection of one of the prayers made

in the plaint or rejection of the plaint partly. This is the reason why

the petitioners / defendants have sought for two prayers in their

application, that is, the rejection of the plaint under Rule 11(a) –

that there is no cause of action and under Rule 11(d) – that the suit

is barred by law of limitation.

12. It is interesting to notice the observations of a minority view

in Vidya Devi alias Vidya Vati Vs. Prem Prakash and others

reported in AIR 1995 SC 1789. It was held that the legislature has

not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a suit for partition

because partition an incident attached to the property and there is

always a running cause of action for seeking partition by one of the

co-sharers if and when he decides not to keep his share joint with

other co-sharers. Since filing of the suit is wholly dependent upon

the will of the co-sharer, the period of limitation, specially the date

or time from where such period would commence, could not have
 - 14 -

CRP No. 100095 of 2021

been possibly provided for by the legislature and, therefore, no

such prescription is made in the law of limitation, as far as suits for

partition are concerned.

13. However, one of the defences that a defendant could raise in

a suit for partition is that there has already been a prior partition or

that the plaintiff has already relinquished his/ her rights in the suit

schedule properties. Since, technically, rejection of the plaint in a

suit for partition could not be sought by the defendants by targeting

a prayer seeking declaration against the deed of relinquishment,

the defendants have resorted to making two prayers in the instant

application. Thereto, the trial Court could have rejected the

application by considering the objections raised at the hands of the

plaintiffs that since two different reliefs are sought, the application

was required to be rejected in view of Section 23 of the Karnataka

Civil Rules of Practice.

14. The trial Court is however, right in holding that having regard

to the averments made in the plaint that the deed of relinquishment

was obtained fraudulently, on the premise that a power of attorney

was required for the brothers and since no consideration is passed

on under the deed of relinquishment, many questions would arise

CRP No. 100095 of 2021

in the present suit. Questions as to whether the deed of

relinquishment is a void document or a voidable document;

whether there was a need to seek a declaration in respect of the

deed of relinquishment, if document is a void document; etc. would

arise for decision making. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held

that the question regarding the law of limitation raised at the hands

of the defendants would be a mixed question of law and facts,

having regard to the averments made in the plaint.

15. In that view of the matter, this Court is in agreement with the

trial Court in coming to a conclusion that the issue of limitation

raised at the hands of the defendants is a mixed question of law

and facts and therefore the same is required to be considered after

looking into the evidence that could be adduced by the parties in a

full dressed trial. At any rate, suit for a primary relief of partition

and separate possession cannot be rejected at the threshold on the

ground that law of limitation would apply insofar as the deed of

relinquishment is concerned. The two prayers made by the

plaintiffs are inter connected. There cannot be rejection of the

plaint partly. The plaint also cannot be rejected on the ground that
 - 16 -

CRP No. 100095 of 2021

there is no cause of action, since the plaint does disclose cause of

action for seeking partition of the suit schedule property.

Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.

SD
JUDGE
BVV