Grandchildren’s Partition Suit Over Grandmother’s 1997 Sale Survives as Joint-Family Funding Claim Needs Adjudication: Karnataka HC

The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and declaration, alleging that the property purchased in their grandmother’s name had been acquired with joint-family funds and that a 1997 sale deed executed by their grandmother and the plaintiffs’ father was not binding on their alleged shares.

The petitioner, defendant No. 6 and purchaser under the sale deed, sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, asserting, among other grounds, that it disclosed no cause of action and was barred by limitation.

The trial court dismissed the application, finding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action requiring trial.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision.

Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court considers the plaint as a whole, together with documents relied on by the plaintiff, and must reject it if it discloses no cause of action or appears from its statements to be barred by law; the defendant’s defence is not considered at that stage (*Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali*).

A property standing in a female family member’s name is not presumed to be joint-family property; the party asserting joint-family ownership must establish a sufficient family nucleus (*Marabasappa (D) by LRs v. Ningappa (D) by LRs*).

Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act recognises a female Hindu’s absolute ownership of property held in her own right, while Sections 15 and 16 govern succession to a female Hindu’s property.

Article 59 of the Limitation Act concerns time to obtain specified reliefs relating to instruments, while Article 110 may be relevant to a claim concerning exclusion from joint-family property.

A non-executant may seek a declaration that a deed is not binding on their rights rather than cancellation of the deed (*Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh*).

The plaint expressly alleged that the purchase consideration came from joint-family funds. Although the registered deed in the grandmother’s name and her execution of the later sale deed supported the petitioner’s case, they did not conclusively establish at the rejection stage that the property was her separate acquisition; the source of funds and the property’s legal character required adjudication.

The Court noted that the 1997 sale and the absence of a specific pleaded date of knowledge raised limitation concerns, and that a later demand for partition could not itself revive a time-barred challenge. However, the applicable limitation provision and the effect of the alienation depended on the nature of the property and the circumstances of possession, so the plaint could not be held barred on its face.

As the plaintiffs were non-executants seeking a declaration that the deed did not bind their alleged shares, the absence of a cancellation prayer did not, by itself, require rejection.

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and all interlocutory applications in the petition were closed.