Suit For Partition Not Maintainable Without Seeking Cancellation Of Registered Partition Deed Signed By Plaintiff: Karnataka High Court

"In the absence of such relief [for cancellation of the deed or declaration], no cause of action is disclosed for a suit for partition," High Court of Karnataka, in a significant ruling, held that a suit for partition and separate possession cannot be maintained if the plaintiffs fail to challenge a prior registered partition deed to which they were signatories.

A division bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T observed that when a party is an executant of a registered instrument, they must specifically seek its cancellation within the prescribed limitation period to maintain a subsequent claim over the property.

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit for partition in 2025, claiming that the suit property was ancestral joint family property. However, a registered partition deed had already been executed in 2010, where Plaintiff No. 1 was a signatory, allotting the property to his mother (Defendant No. 2). After the property was sold to a third party and subsequently seized by a bank under the SARFAESI Act due to loan defaults, the plaintiffs challenged the transactions, alleging the 2010 deed was signed under misrepresentation.

The primary question before the court was whether a suit for partition discloses a cause of action when the plaintiffs do not seek to set aside a prior registered partition deed they had signed. The court was also called upon to determine if the suit was barred by the law of limitation and the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

Requirement To Seek Cancellation Of Registered Deeds

The Court observed that the plaintiffs had essentially sought partition by treating the property as joint family property, completely ignoring the legal effect of the 2010 registered partition deed. Since Plaintiff No. 1 was an admitted signatory and executant of that deed, the bench noted that he was legally required to seek a specific prayer for the cancellation of that instrument or a declaration that it was not binding.

Court Explains Absence Of Cause Of Action

The bench emphasized that in the absence of a prayer to cancel the registered partition deed, the plaint failed to disclose a valid cause of action for a fresh partition. The court noted that a party cannot bypass the legal consequences of a registered document they executed by simply filing a suit for partition years later without challenging the original alienation or settlement.

"In the absence of such relief, no cause of action is disclosed for a suit for partition."

Limitation Period For Challenging Registered Instruments

Regarding the aspect of limitation, the Court referred to Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which stipulates a three-year period to cancel or set aside an instrument. The bench pointed out that the partition deed was registered in 2010, while the suit was only filed in 2025, more than fifteen years later. The Court rejected the plea of misrepresentation, noting that Plaintiff No. 1, being a literate person and an executant before the Sub-Registrar, had constructive knowledge of the document.

Court Rules On Limitation Bar

The bench held that the suit was "on the face of the record" barred by limitation. It observed that the plaintiffs could not "reignite their rights" after sleeping on them for over a decade. The Court clarified that when a plaintiff has knowledge of a registered instrument, the time begins to run from the date of execution or knowledge, and a delay of fifteen years is fatal to the maintainability of the suit.

"Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 2025 after expiry of fifteen years. Thus, on the face of the record, it is barred by limitation."

Rejection Of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC. Invoking the precedent set in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, the bench stated that "clever drafting" to create an illusory cause of action should not prevent the court from dismissing sham litigation at the threshold. The bench noted that the plaintiffs failed to plead specific particulars of fraud or mistake as required under Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC.

Judicial Policy Against Vexatious Litigation

The High Court reiterated that the underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 is to ensure that judicial time is not wasted on meaningless litigation that is clearly barred by law. It noted that if a meaningful reading of the plaint reveals that the suit is vexatious or lacks a real cause of action, the court is duty-bound to terminate the proceedings immediately.

Bar Under Section 34 Of SARFAESI Act

The Court also addressed the involvement of the Bangalore City Co-operative Bank (Defendant No. 7). It held that since the bank had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act following a default, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was expressly barred under Section 34 of the Act. Any relief seeking to nullify mortgage enforcement proceedings falls exclusively within the domain of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

"The relief sought in the plaint, in so far as to nullify the registered mortgage and other enforcement proceedings, admittedly, it would fall within the domain of the Debts Recovery Tribunal."

The High Court concluded that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint as it was both barred by limitation and failed to disclose a cause of action against the registered instruments. Finding no merit in the appeal, the bench dismissed the Regular First Appeal, affirming that registered family settlements cannot be ignored in subsequent partition claims.

Date of Decision: 24 June 2026