Major Acts and Provisions:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VII Rule 11 (Rejection of Plaint for Limitation or Lack of Cause of Action)

• Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 3 (Constructive Notice of Registered Documents)

• Limitation Act, 1963 – Applicability to Suits for Partition

1. Nature of Litigation:

   • The appellants (defendants) challenged the High Court’s remand order, contending that the plaintiffs’ suit for partition was barred by limitation and lacked cause of action. The Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court’s dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Para 1–4, 17)

2. Question of Law:

   • Whether a plaint disclosing no cause of action and barred by limitation can be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Para 15–16)

   • Whether registered sale deeds and revenue records constitute constructive notice of partition, rendering subsequent claims time-barred. (Para 8–13)

3. Facts in Brief:

   • The suit for partition was filed in 2023 by grandchildren of Shivanna (original owner Boranna’s son) alleging denial of their share in ancestral property.

   • The defendants proved an oral partition in 1968, recorded in revenue records, and registered sale deeds executed in 1978 by family members. (Para 6–9)

   • Plaintiffs failed to specify when they acquired knowledge of the sale deeds or challenge them within limitation. (Para 11)

4. Submissions/Arguments:

   • Defendants:
     a. Suit was barred by limitation as partition and sale deeds were public knowledge since 1968 and 1978 respectively.
     b. Registered documents under Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provided constructive notice. (Para 9, 12–13)
     c. Relied on Suraj Lamp Industries (2012) and Mukund Bhavan Trust (2024) to assert that limitation could be decided at the plaint stage. (Para 12, 14)

   • Plaintiffs:
     a. Claimed limitation ran from the date of knowledge but omitted specifics in pleadings. (Para 11)

5. Decision:

   • The Supreme Court held:
     a. The plaint was "manifestly vexatious" and disclosed no cause of action, warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Para 15–17)
     b. Constructive notice of registered sale deeds (1978) and partition (1968) meant the suit filed in 2023 was hopelessly time-barred. (Para 13–14)
     c. High Court erred in remanding the case; Trial Court’s dismissal was restored. (Para 17–18)

6. Ratio:

   • A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if it is barred by limitation or lacks cause of action, discernible from its averments alone. (Para 15)

   • Registered documents operate as constructive notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and delay beyond limitation defeats claims. (Para 12–13)

Subjects:

Partition, Limitation, Constructive Notice, Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Registered Sale Deeds, Rejection of Plaint, Ancestral Property, Vexatious Litigation.

Case Cited:

• Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656

• Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Chhatrapati Udayan Raje (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844)