ASHOK B HOTTIN Vs. E JOHN PETER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No.7 in O.S. 2748/2014 has filed this civil revision petition assailing the order of the trial court dismissing his application, I.A.No.3, filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'). The plaintiff's suit is for partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share in the property bearing No. 394 measuring East to West 30.6' and North to South 19' situated at Sarakki VI Phase, Bengaluru. He has also sought judgment and decree to hold that sale deeds dated 24.10.1983, 20.3.1984, 17.2.1987, 20.2.1995, 27.8.1998 and 28.1.2005 are not binding on his legitimate share. Defendants 1 to 6 are the sisters and brothers of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 7 is the end purchaser of the schedule property.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that the City Improvement Trust Board made allotment of the plaint schedule property to his father. Before the sale deed was executed he died and therefore his wife, i.e., the plaintiff's mother Marry Helen gave a letter to the Chairman, BDA, on 10.11.1981 seeking execution of sale deed to her name, and her request was considered. A lease-cum-sale deed was executed in her favour on 3.6.1983. On 24.10.1983, the plaintiff's mother sold the plaint schedule property to one Venkatakrishnappa. This Venkatakrishnappa sold the property to one Balakrishna and V.P.Nalini on 20.3.1984. On 17.2.1987 Balakrishna and his wife sold the property in favour of K.S.Shashikala. After these sale transactions having taken place, on 9.1.1985 the BDA executed the absolute sale deed in respect of plaintiff's mother. Sashikala sold the plaint schedule property to Shivaraj on 20.2.1995. This Shivaraj sold the property to R.Shanthi on 27.8.1998. On 28.1.2006, the seventh defendant purchased the plaint schedule property from Shanthi. The plaintiff stated that he was not aware of these sale transactions and he came to know about them in the year 2012. He stated that he and defendants 1 to 6 are in joint constructive possession of the plaint schedule property being the legal heirs of their father. They all are equally entitled to a share.

(3.) Seventh defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and took up a contention mainly that the suit was barred by time. Seventh defendant also made an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Civil Procedure Code for rejection of plaint.