In a pivotal judgment on April 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, held that limitation for seeking partition starts from the date of registration of a sale deed, and not from any vague claim of subsequent knowledge. The Court quashed a High Court order that had revived a partition suit filed in 2023, nearly 45 years after the execution of registered sale deeds that followed an oral family partition in 1968.
The bench emphatically ruled that such delayed and baseless litigation must be “nipped in the bud” under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Background of the Case
The case pertained to a partition suit filed by the grandchildren of one Shivanna, claiming a share in ancestral property located at Pattangere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The property originally belonged to Boranna, who had four sons: Nanjundappa, Siddappa, Basappa, and Shivanna.
According to the plaintiffs (children of Shivanna’s daughter Mangalamma), the ancestral property had not been divided and they were deprived of their rightful share. However, the defendants, who are descendants of Shanthappa (son of Basappa), contended that an oral family partition took place in 1968, and was followed by mutation entries in revenue records and registered sale deeds executed in 1978 by various family members, including the plaintiffs’ own relatives.
The trial court rejected the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for being barred by limitation and lacking cause of action. The Karnataka High Court, however, remanded the case back to the trial court, holding that triable issues existed. The defendants approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the suit for partition filed in 2023 was barred by limitation?
- Whether the registered sale deeds executed in 1978 provided constructive notice?
- Whether the plaint deserved to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC?
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Mr. Sundaram, appearing for the appellants (defendants), submitted that:
- The 1968 oral partition was acted upon and recorded in official revenue records.
- The plaintiffs’ relatives executed registered sale deeds in 1978, which serve as constructive notice.
- Plaintiffs failed to disclose when they allegedly became aware of these transactions.
- The suit was a textbook case of clever drafting to bypass the bar of limitation.
The respondents (plaintiffs) contended that:
- They recently came to know of the transactions and sought partition accordingly.
- Limitation should be counted from the date of such knowledge.
- There were factual issues which required full trial.
Judgment and Key Observations
Setting aside the High Court’s remand order, the Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s rejection of the suit. The Court held that the plaintiffs had constructive notice of the 1978 sale deeds, and could not claim ignorance after four decades.
“The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years. The suit was prima facie barred by law.”
Quoting Suraj Lamp Industries v. State of Haryana [(2012) 1 SCC 656], the Court emphasized that:
“Registration gives notice to the world… enables people to find out whether property has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability… and who has title to the property.”
The Court also cited the 2024 ruling in Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Bhonsle to hold that:
“There is constructive notice from the date of registration and the presumption under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act comes into operation.”
Finally, referring to Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [(2017) 13 SCC 174], the Court stated:
“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.”
Final Orders
- The High Court’s order dated 08.01.2025 was set aside.
- The Trial Court’s rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was upheld.
- Both appeals were allowed.
- All pending applications were disposed of.
