Partition suit is barred by limitation filed by erstwhile minor , 12 years after becoming major against the purchaser The suit for partition and separate possession of 1/5 share was filed by the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) in respect of suit Properties. - The present appeal, however, is filed by the purchaser of property at Item No.6 in schedule of properties. -The appellant No.1 (defendant No. 8) had purchased the stated property from defendant Nos.1 and 4, brother and mother respectively of the plaintiff. The sale deed records that the property was sold for legal necessity of the family. Admittedly,respondent No.1 became major in 1981 but the suit came to be filed only in the year 1994.- The Trial Court opined that the suit in reference to property at Item No. 6 in respect of which the present appeal has been filed, was bared by limitation. - Additionally, the Trial Court opined that no relief had been claimed by the plaintiff to declare that the sale deed executed in favour of the appellants as illegal, void or not binding on the plaintiff. On that basis, the relief claimed by the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) came to be rejected by the Trial Court. - The High Court proceeded on the assumption that the property became available for partition by applying Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; and decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1 by declaring that she was entitled to half share in all the scheduled properties. Apex court held that the High Court and the relevant material on record, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the High Court committed manifest error in reversing the decree passed by the Trial Court at least in respect of the suit property described as Item No.6 in the schedule of properties which was purchased by the appellants on 10.06.1981 by a registered sale deed and which sale deed has not been challenged. The suit came to be filed almost after a gap of 12 years therefrom and more so after 13 years from respondent No.1 (plaintiff) attaining majority in 1981. In such a situation, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff as the property already stood transferred and more so in light of the just finding recorded by the Trial Court that the transfer of the subject property in favour of the appellants was for legal necessity of the family, which fact has been mentioned in the registered sale deed itself and had remained unchallenged.

1
  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9984 OF 2011 
ASHOKA & ANR.                                       Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
M.C. SUJATA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.                   Respondent(s)
    O R D E R 
Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
This   appeal   emanates   from   the   judgment   and   decree   passed   by
the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   at   Bangalore   dated   21.04.2006   in   RFA
No. 886 of 2002.
This appeal is filed by the original defendant Nos. 8 and 13.
The   suit   for   partition   and   separate   possession   of   1/5   share   was
filed   by   the   respondent   No.1   (plaintiff)   in   respect   of   suit
properties. The present appeal, however, is filed by the purchaser
of   property   at   Item   No.6   in   schedule   of   properties.     This   appeal,
therefore, is confined to the said property being Survey No. 768/1A
� 0.20 gts. situated at Maddur Kassaba.
The appellant  No.1 (defendant  No. 8)  had purchased  the stated
property   from   defendant   Nos.1   and   4,   brother   and   mother

2
respectively   of   the   plaintiff.     The   sale   deed   records   that   the
property   was   sold   for   legal   necessity   of   the   family.   Admittedly,
respondent No.1 became major in 1981 but the suit came to be filed
only in the year 1994. The assertion made in the suit is that cause
of   action   had   arisen   on   20.12.1993   for   which   the   suit   came   to   be
filed in 1994.  The Trial Court framed 9 issues on the basis of the
pleadings   filed   by   the   parties.     The   Trial   Court   opined   that   the
suit in reference to property at Item No. 6 in respect of which the
present   appeal   has   been   filed,   was   bared   by   limitation.
Additionally,   the   Trial   Court   opined   that   no   relief   had   been
claimed by the plaintiff to declare that the sale deed executed in
favour   of   the   appellants   as   illegal,   void   or   not   binding   on   the
plaintiff.  On that basis, the relief claimed by the respondent No.
1 (plaintiff) came to be rejected by the Trial Court.
 
The   respondent   No.1   carried   the   matter   in   appeal   before   the
High   Court.     The   High   Court   proceeded   on   the   assumption   that   the
property   became   available   for   partition   by   applying   Section   14   of
the   Hindu   Succession   Act,   1956;   and   decreed   the   suit   in   favour   of
respondent No.1 by declaring that she was entitled to half share in
all the scheduled properties.
As   aforesaid,   the   challenge   in   the   present   appeal   to   the
decree passed by the High Court is limited to the suit property at
Item   No.   6   mentioned   hitherto.   During   the   pendency   of   the   present
appeal,   the   respondent   No.1   has   died.   The   appellants   moved   an
application   for   bringing     her   legal   heirs   on   record,   namely,   the

3
respondent   No.5   being   her   mother.   That   application   was   allowed   on
14.03.2011.     From   the   record,   it   appears   that   on   17.08.2011,   some
advocate   by   name   Mr.   N.K.   Verma   appeared   before   the   court   and
undertook to file appearance   on behalf of respondent No.5 who has
been   brought   on   record   also   as   the   legal   heir   of   respondent   No.   1
(plaintiff). However, no appearance has been filed so far.    As   a
result,   we   have   no   option   but   to   proceed   against   the   contesting
respondent exparte.
After having perused the judgment of the Trial Court and also
the   High   Court   and   the   relevant   material   on   record,   we   have   no
hesitation   in   taking   the   view   that   the   High   Court   committed
manifest error in reversing the decree passed by the Trial Court at
least in respect of the suit property described as Item No.6 in the
schedule   of   properties   which   was   purchased   by   the   appellants   on
10.06.1981   by   a   registered   sale   deed   and   which   sale   deed   has   not
been challenged. The suit came to be filed almost after a gap of 12
years   therefrom   and   more   so   after   13   years   from   respondent   No.1
(plaintiff)   attaining   majority   in   1981.   In   such   a     situation,   no
relief   can   be   granted   to   the   plaintiff   as   the   property   already
stood transferred and more so in light of the just finding recorded
by   the   Trial   Court   that   the   transfer   of   the   subject   property   in
favour   of   the   appellants   was   for   legal   necessity   of   the   family,
which   fact   has   been   mentioned   in   the   registered   sale   deed   itself
and had remained unchallenged.

4
Taking   any   view   of   the   matter,   the   impugned   judgment   and
decree   of   the   High   Court   qua   property   at   Item   No.6   of   the   suit
schedule,   cannot   be   sustained   and   the   same   is   set   aside.   Instead,
the   judgment   and   decree   passed   by   the   Trial   Court   rejecting   the
suit   for   partition   and   possession   in   respect   of   the   said   property
(at Item No.6) is affirmed. No order as to costs.
The Civil Appeal is allowed accordingly.
�...................J
(A.M. KHANWILKAR)
�...................J
(AJAY RASTOGI)
New Delhi
March 12, 2019

5
ITEM NO.102               COURT NO.9               SECTION IV-A
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal  No(s).  9984/2011
ASHOKA & ANR.                                      Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
M.C. SUJATA(DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.                   Respondent(s)

Date : 12-03-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
For Appellant(s)
                    Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR
Mr. K.V. Balakrishnan, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, Adv.
                 
For Respondent(s)
                    Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, AOR
                    Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv.
Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv.
Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv.
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
The Civil Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK SINGH)                                  (VIDYA NEGI)
COURT MASTER (SH)                               COURT MASTER (NSH)
{Signed order is placed on the file}