Source: Karnataka High Court (CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.70/2022 (IO))

Why in News?

The Karnataka High Court has ordered that filing a suit for property partition after a lapse of 90 years of passing a final decree is not maintainable if the possession has not been delivered as per the preliminary and final decrees in the matter of P Ramaprasad v. Thyagaraj R & Others.

Background

• The present matter is concerned with one Nanjareddy who had three sons, Ramareddy, Lingareddy and Munireddy.
• The family possessed properties in Bangalore City, a family partition amongst the members of the Nanjareddy family took place, by a final decree of Court of District Judge at Bangalore dated 14th May 1928.
• The plaintiff is the grandson of Nanjunda S/o Munireddy.
• Munireddy got a definite share as per the judgment and decree, he died during the pendency of the suit leaving behind his three sons without getting any share in suit property towards his share of 1/3rd which was declared by the Court.
  • It was stated that there was a cordial relationship between the aggrieved party and possession even after partition continued with Ramareddy.
  • It was bonafidely believed by them that there was no room for suspicion in said possession but now they have declined to give a share. Hence, they filed a suit for the relief of partition of 1/3rd legitimate share.
• A plaint was filed containing arguments that partition among the legal heirs of deceased Munireddy has not been affected and the plaintiff being the legal heirs of deceased Munireddy is entitled to a share.
• The defendant appeared and filed a statement of objection, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (CPC) for rejection of plaint contending that suit is barred by law and also that suit is barred under Section 47 of CPC.
• The Trial Court, having considered the matter before it, opined that Section 47 of the CPC is not attracted and also the suit is not barred by limitation.
• Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

Court’s Observations

• The Karnataka High Court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Dr. Chiranji Lal (D) By Lrs v. Hari Das (D) By Lrs (2005), where the court clarified that the commencement of the limitation period for executing a decree (pertaining to partition) starts from the date of the decree, making it enforceable from that very date.
• The Court also mentioned that final decree was passed on 14th May 1928 and instead of filing execution petition and obtaining possession, after lapse of 90 years, once again suit is filed for the relief of partition therefore nothing remains to be determined.
• Justice H P Sandesh, while relying on above verdict dismissed the suit and held that the Trial Court committed an error in concluding that the suit is not barred by limitation and the very approach is erroneous and hence it requires interference.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1973(CPC)

The provision for rejection of plaint is contained under Order 7 Rule 11.

Order VII – Plaint

Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint — The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases —

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

Section 47 - Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.— (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.

Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.

Explanation II. —

(a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and

(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.