Sri Rajashekar vs Sri Nagaraju - Civil Appeal

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 13, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Sri Rajashekar vs Sri Nagaraju on 18 March, 2026

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                          BEFORE

                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                      REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2505/2010 (PAR)

               BETWEEN:

               1.     SRI. RAJASHEKAR
                      S/O CHIKKAMARAPPA

               2.     KUM. PADMAVATHI
                      D/O CHIKKAMARAPPA

                      BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
                      DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE
                      BEGUR HOBLI
                      BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.            ... APPELLANTS

VINAYAKA (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
BV
AND:
Digitally signed
by VINAYAKA B V
Date: 2026.03.24
14:33:37 +0530 1. SRI. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE MUDDAIAH SHETTY
R/AT NO.127/5,
OPP. TO BANGALORE HIGH SCHOOL
BULL TEMPLE ROAD CROSS
BENGALURU-560019.

               2.     SRI. CHIKKAMARAPPA
                      S/O LATE HONNURAPPA

               3.     SRI. MAHESH
                      S/O CHIKKAMARAPPA
                            2

1. SRI. MANJUNATH
   S/O CHIKKAMARAPPA

   RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE
   RESIDING AT DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE
   BEGUR HOBLI
   BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560019. ... RESPONDENTS

           (R2, R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED;
         NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT,
          VIDE ORDER DATED 27.05.2013)
   

   THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.08.2010
   PASSED IN R.A.NO.05/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT
   JUDGE, I/C 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU
   RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
   UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2009
   PASSED IN O.S.NO.726/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL
   JUDGE (SR.DN), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

   THIS R.S.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
   JUDGMENT ON 27.02.206 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
   THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                   CAV JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Though the

respondents are served, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are served

and unrepresented and notice to respondent No.1 is held

sufficient vide order dated 27.05.2013.

3

1. This second appeal is filed by plaintiffs praying this

Court to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2010

passed in R.A.No.5/2010 on the file of I Additional District Judge,

Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in so far as dismissing the

suit on the ground of limitation.

1. The factual matrix of case of the appellants/plaintiffs

before the Trial Court is that the appellants herein are the son

and daughter of the respondent No.2/defendant No.2. The

respondent Nos.3 and 4 are also the children of respondent

No.2. The respondent No.1 is the purchaser of the suit schedule

property. It is contented that suit schedule property originally

belongs to the grand-father of the appellants and the father of

the respondent No.2 by name one Late Sri Honnurappa. The said

Late Sri Honnurappa, had extensive agricultural properties,

which were inherited by defendant No.2 and his brothers. After

the death of Late Sri Honnurappa, all the ancestral joint family

properties were partitioned among the brothers, as per the

partition deed dated 05.10.1971. In the said partition deed, the

suit schedule property had fallen to the share of respondent 4 No.2. After partition, the appellants herein and the respondent

Nos.2 to 4 being the joint family, started cultivating the lands

peacefully and in joint cultivation, and the family of the

appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 4 were also doing milk

vending and flower business which flourished, as such, there was

absolutely no necessity for the respondent No.2 to sell the joint

family ancestral property along with other two defendants.

Under these circumstances, the property was sold under the

influence of the defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.4,81,250/- and

the actual value of the property as on the date of sale was more

than Rs.15,00,000/-. The suit schedule property is an ancestral

property and plaintiffs have a right in the said property and

when they come to know about the sale, after attaining the

majority, they filed the suit for the relief of partition and

separate possession and declare that the sale deed dated

11.08.1995 is not binding on them.

1. The Trial Judge having answered issue Nos.1 and 2

as 'affirmative' comes to the conclusion that without any legal

necessity and for the benefit of the family, property was sold and 5 consideration is not fully paid and suit is not filed in collusion

with defendant Nos.2 to 4. The Trial Court also answered issue

No.4 as 'affirmative', in coming to the conclusion that suit is

barred by limitation and no cause of action for the suit and

dismissed the same.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of dismissal of suit,

an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court in

R.A.No.5/2010. The First Appellate Court also comes to the

conclusion that Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that

suit is barred by limitation and it does not require any

interference. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before

this Court.

1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in

this second appeal would vehemently contend that the judgment

of both the Courts are illegal, capacious and committed an error.

Though the Trial Judge answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as

'affirmative' and comes to the conclusion that suit is not

conclusive, but committed an error in dismissing the suit. The

First Appellate Court also failed to take note of law of limitation 6 while dismissing the suit as barred by limitation and failed to

take note of Sections 6 and 9 of Limitation Act which clearly

provides that suit can be instituted within 3 years from the date

of minor attaining majority or from the date of knowledge.

1. In the instant case, it is specifically averred in the

plaint that date of knowledge of the plaintiffs is in the first week

of January, 2008. The defendants also not specifically dispute

the said fact. As such, the present suit is clearly within the law of

limitation and failed to take note of specific finding given by the

First Appellate Court that limitation for the purpose of relief

sought in the present suit has to be calculated under Article 109 and not under Article 60. But, the Trial Court committed an error

in invoking Article 60 of the Limitation Act. The counsel would

submit that Article 109 provides for limitation of 12 years from

the date of alienee taking possession of the property. Section 6 gives an exception to minors, to institute a suit within the same

period after the disability as has ceased, as would otherwise

have been allowed from the time specified thereof in the third 7 column of the schedule. This point of law has been completely

overlooked by the First Appellate Court

1. The counsel in support of his argument relied upon

the judgment of Apex Court in [K.C. LAXMANA vs. K.C.

CHANDRAPPA GOWDA AND ANOTHERS](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/136657008/) reported in (2022)

18 SCC 483, wherein the Apex Court held that suit by a Hindu

governed by Mitakshara law to set aside his father's alienation of

ancestral property filed within twelve years from the date of

alienee took possession of property and the same is not barred

by time. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court

paragraph No.9 and so also paragraph No.10.

1. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of

Division Bench of this Court in [GANAPATI SANTARAM

BHOSALE AND ANOTHER vs. RAMACHANDRA SUBBARAO

KULKARNI AND OTHERS](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1329393/) reported in AIR 1985 KARNATAKA

1. The counsel referring this judgment would contend that

this Court discussed with regard to suit filed for setting aside

alienation made by guardian of property of minor and also

discussed Article 60 and Article 109 of Limitation Act i.e., 8 alienation by karta or guardian is of joint family property and not

property of minor. Hence, suit for setting aside such alienation is

governed by Article 109 and not Article 60. The counsel referring

these judgments would vehemently contend that the suit is in

time, but the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed

an error in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation.

1. This Court issued notice to the respondents and

inspite of service of notice, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are

served and unrepresented. Notice to respondent No.1 is held

sufficient vide order dated 27.05.2013.

1. Having considered the grounds which have been

urged in the appeal memo as well as the arguments canvassed

during the course of argument and in keeping the principles [laid

down in](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1329393/) the judgments, this Court has to analyze the material

available on record.

1. This Court, while admitting the second appeal has

framed the following substantial questions of law which reads as

hereunder:

9

1) Is the date of reckoning commence to run from
the date of alienation as per Section 109 of the
Limitation Act, subject to the exceptions
provided to a minor under Section 6 of the said
Act ?

2) Will the period of limitation commence to run
from the date of alienation as per Section 109 of the Limitation Act, subject to the exceptions
provided to a minor under Section 6 of the said
Act ?
13. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and also the principles laid down in the judgments

referred supra and also considering the substantial questions of

law, this Court has to take note of whether the date for

reckoning the period of limitation adopted by the Trial Court and

the First Appellate Court is right or whether the period of

limitation commence to run from the date of alienation as per Section 109 of the Limitation Act, subject to the exceptions

provided to a minor under Section 6 of the said Act.

1. Having considered the factual aspects of the case,

there is no dispute with regard to the factual aspects of the case 10 is concerned, since suit is filed on 15.04.2008 challenging the

sale deed executed by the father i.e., defendant No.2 and other

two brothers dated 11.08.1995. It is also not in dispute that suit

is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession of their

1/5th share each and both the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are minors at

the time of selling the property. It is to be noted that in the

plaint, it is stated that property originally belongs to Late

Sri Honnurappa i.e., grand-father of the plaintiffs and he got the

property by way of partition as per the partition deed dated

05.10.1971. It is contended that after getting the partition by

defendant No.2, defendant Nos.3 and 4 intensively cultivated the

land along with the father and family was also having flourishing

income and sale was not made for legal necessity. But,

defendant No.1 has influenced the defendant No.2 and

purchased the suit schedule property and received sale

consideration of Rs.4,81,250/- on 11.08.1995. It is also not in

dispute that possession was delivered in favour of defendant

No.1 by defendant Nos.2 to 4 having received the sale

consideration.

11

1. The Trial Court also considered the pleadings of

plaintiffs. The defendant Nos.2 to 4 have not contested the

matter. But, defendant No.1, who is the purchaser has contested

the matter. Hence, the Trial Court framed the issues and

answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as 'affirmative' and issue No.3 as

'negative'. But, while answering issue No.4 regarding limitation,

the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that suit is barred by

limitation. The Trial Judge while considering the issue of

limitation, taken note of Ex.P1-genealogical tree, wherein the

names of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are also mentioned.

The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are said to be the

children of defendant No.2. Even, it reveals their respective age

and there is age gap of 3 or 4 years in the age of defendant

Nos.3 and 4 and plaintiff Nos.2 and 1. Their age is shown as 34,

30, 27 and 23 respectively. The Village Accountant issued this

document on 08.04.2008 just prior to filing of the suit and in the

said document, the very plaintiffs have shown their age as 23

and 27 respectively. It is thus considered as the authentic

document, since no other document is produced before the Trial

Court with regard to proof of age of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. 12

1. But in the plaint, age of plaintiffs are shown as 20

and 22 as against their own document of Ex.P1 and intentionally

the plaintiffs have given lesser age while filing the suit. The Trial

Court also in paragraph No.13 taken note that Sections 6 and 9 of Limitation Act contends that soon after within 3 years after

attaining the majority, the minors can institute the suit for

cancellation of this registered sale deed, it is must brought

within 3 years after attaining the majority. In the present case,

the suit has been brought by the plaintiffs beyond the limitation

prescribed. Hence, comes to the conclusion that suit is barred by

limitation.

1. The First Appellate Court also, while re-appreciating

the evidence available on record, while answering the issue of

limitation, taken note of Ex.P1-genealogical tree filed by the

plaintiffs and the same is signed by plaintiff No.1 in the presence

of jurisdictional villagers and the same is attested by four

persons and the same was issued by the Village Accountant on

08.04.2008 and taken note of age mentioned therein as 23

years to the plaintiff No.1 and 27 years to the plaintiff No.2 and 13 an observation is made that this would go to show that 3 years

had already elapsed from the date of attaining majority.

Therefore, the age of the plaintiffs as mentioned in the suit was

incorrect and the age mentioned in the genealogical tree marked

as Ex.P1 is to be treated as correct and the same is also

supported by the Age of the appellants mentioned in the appeal

memo.

1. In paragraph No.13, the First Appellate Court taken

note that, if 12 years is reckoned from 11.08.1995, suit should

have been filed before 11.08.2007. But, suit came to be filed

almost 1 year 2 months later. Even, if 3 years is considered from

the date of cessation of disability i.e., minority of the plaintiff

No.1, suit was filed long after the expiry of 3 years from the date

of cessation of disability. Even on that ground also, the suit was

specifically barred by time. The First Appellate Court also taken

note of Article 60 of Limitation Act to opine that suit should have

been filed within 3 years from the date of attaining majority and

comes to the conclusion that dismissal of the suit on the

question of limitation as opined by the learned Civil Judge is not 14 correct. On re-appreciation of entire evidence for the purpose of

 proper computation of the limitation as contemplated under [Article 109](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/729393/) of [Limitation Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1317393/), the ultimate decision of the learned

 Civil Judge in dismissing the suit on the question of limitation will

 have to be upheld.

1. Now, this Court has to, in considering the grounds

   which have been urged in the present appeal and also the

   substantial questions of law has to take note of Section 6 and

   also Articles 60 and 109 of the Limitation Act.

2. This Court would like to extract Articles 60 , 109 , 110 and 113 of the Limitation Act which is extracted in the judgment

   of the Apex Court in NARAYAN vs. BABASAHEB AND OTHERS reported in (2016) 6 SCC 725 in Paragraph No.17 which reads

   as hereunder:

Period of Time from which period
Description of suit
limitation begins to run

1. To set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward -

(a) by the ward who has attained Three years When the ward attains majority.
majority. 15 (b) by the ward's legal representative-

(i) When the ward dies within Three years When the ward attains majority.
three years from the date of
attaining majority.
(ii) When the ward dies before Three years When the ward dies.
attaining majority.

1. By a Hindu governed by Twelve years When the alienee takes
   Mitakshara law to set aside his father's possession of the property.
   alienation of ancestral property.

2. By a person excluded from a joint Twelve years When the exclusion becomes
   family property to enforce a right to known to the plaintiff.
   share therein.

3. Any suit for which no period of Three years When the right to sue accrues.
   limitation is provided elsewhere in this
   Schedule. 21. The Apex Court in the said judgment held that [Article

    60](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1102405/) is applicable to suit by quondam minor to set aside alienation
   
    of his property by his guardian and limitation period of three
   
    years will start from the date of minor attaining majority and in
   
    paragraph Nos.26 and 28 held that there cannot be any doubt
   
    that a suit by quondam minor to set aside the alienation of his
   
    property by his guardian is governed by [Article 60.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1102405/) To impeach
   
    the transfer of immovable property by the guardian, the minor
   
    must file the suit within prescribed period of three years after
   
    attaining    majority.    Therefore,      quondam        minor     plaintiff 16 challenging the transfer of an immovable property made by his
   

guardian in contravention of Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the 1956

Act and who seeks possession of property can file the suit only

within the limitation prescribed under Article 60 of the Act and Articles 109 , 110 or 113 of the Act are not applicable to the facts

of the case.

1. Even the Apex Court in paragraph Nos.27 and 29

also taken note of the fact that the High Court as well as the

Trial Court erred in applying Article 109 of the Act, where [Article

109](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/729393/) of the Act clearly speaks about alienation made by father

governed by Mitakshara law and further Courts below proceeded

in discussing about the long rope given under Article 109 of the

Act and comparatively lesser time specified under Article 60 of

the Act. It is well settled principle of interpretation that

inconvenience and hardship to a person will not be the decisive

factors while interpreting the provision. When bare reading of

the provision makes it very clear and unequivocally gives a

meaning, it was to be interpreted in the same sense as the Latin

maxim says dulo lex sed lex, which means the law is hard, but it 17 is law and there cannot be any departure from the words of the

law. Further, the Limitation Act neither confers a right nor an

obligation to file a suit, if no such right exists under the

substantive law. It only provides a period of limitation for filing

the suit.

1. The Apex Court also in paragraph No.25 of [the said

judgment](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109709174/) held as follows:

"25. A close analysis of the language of Article 60 would indicate that it applies to suits by a minor who has
attained majority and further by his legal representatives
when he dies after attaining majority or from the death of
the minor. The broad spectrum of the nature of the suit is
for setting aside the transfer of immovable property made
by the guardian and consequently, a suit for possession by
avoiding the transfer by the guardian in violation of Section 8(2) of the 1956 Act. In essence, it is nothing
more than seeking to set aside the transfer and grant
consequential relief of possession."
24. Having considered the principles laid down in the

judgments referred supra, it is very clear that suit should be filed 18 within 3 years after attaining the majority under Article 60 of the Limitation Act.

1. Even considering Article 109 of the Limitation Act, it

is very clear that if any property by Hindu governed by

Mitakshara law to set aside his father's alienation of ancestral

property filed within twelve years from the date of alienee took

possession of property and the period of limitation starts to

begin when the alienee takes possession of the property. In the

case on hand, possession was delivered on 11.08.1995 itself and

the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit within 12 years. But,

this suit is filed after more than 13 years. Hence, the very

contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants

cannot be accepted.

1. No doubt., learned counsel appearing for the

appellants relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in [K.C.

LAXMANA](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/136657008/) 's case referred supra, wherein it is held that suit by a

Hindu governed by Mitakshara law to set aside his father's

alienation of ancestral property filed within twelve years from the

date of alienee took possession of property. This judgment is 19 also very clear that limitation begins from the date when the

alienee takes possession of the property, that means, possession

was delivered as on the date of sale of the property itself and

even though the plaintiffs were minors, they were having the

knowledge that family was parted with possession of the

property as on the date of sale itself.

1. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants also relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of

this Court in GANAPATI SANTARAM BHOSALE 's case referred

supra, wherein also, the Division Bench of this Court discussed Articles 60 and 109 of the Limitation Act and held that suit filed

for setting aside alienation made by guardian of property of

minor and also discussed that alienation by karta or guardian is

of joint family property and not property of minor. Hence, suit

for setting aside such alienation is governed by Article 109 and

not Article 60 and even Article 109 is also very clear that suit

should be filed within 12 years, since time starts from the date

of alienee taking possession of the property. Hence, this 20 judgment also will not come to the aid of learned counsel

appearing for the appellants as contented is in his argument.

1. This Court also would like to rely upon the judgment

of this Court in H.M. RUDRARADHYA VS. UMA & OTHERS reported in ILR 2014 KAR 1293, wherein also this Court in

detail taken note of Article 60 and so also Article 109 in a case of

sale made by the guardian and the finding of the Trial Court that

the suit was governed by Article 60 of the Limitation Act, and the

plaintiffs have not filed the suit within 3 years from the date of

attaining majority when an appeal was filed and also taken note

of Article 109 and the finding of the Appellate Court is that Article 109 is applicable and not the Article 60 of the [Limitation

Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1317393/) and the same is reversed by this Court in second appeal,

wherein discussion was made that period of limitation prescribed

under transfer of minor's interest by the natural guardian, suit

for setting aside the sale within 3 years from the date of minor

attaining the age of majority and held that the transfer of

minor's property by a natural guardian in contravention of

Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act of 1956 is a voidable 21 transaction and suit to set aside the sale and for possession has

to be within 3 years under Article 60 of the Limitation Act and

discussed the same in paragraph No.12.

1. In paragraph No.13, this Court also discussed that

plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that the Sale Deed is not

binding on her interest in the suit property and this relief is

similar to setting aside the sale, which is contemplated under Article 60 of the Limitation Act and in the absence of the said

relief, the suit itself cannot be maintained. Hence, reversed the

judgment.

1. Having analyzed Articles 60 , 109 and also Section 6 of the Limitation Act and considering the material available on

record, it is not in dispute that sale was made on 11.08.1995

and suit was filed on 15.04.2008 after 12 years from the date of

alienation as per Section 109 of the Limitation Act. Here is a

case where challenge is made by the minors and Article 60 of

the Limitation Act is very clear that suit should be filed within 3

years from the date of attaining majority and the same is not

within the prescribed limit either under Article 60 or Article 109 22 of the Limitation Act. The principles laid down in the judgments

of the Apex Court both in K. C. LAKSHMAN 's case and also in NARAYAN 's case is very clear that suit ought to have been filed

within the prescribed limit. The Apex Court held that Article 60 is

applicable to suit by quondam minor to set aside alienation of his

property by his guardian and limitation period of three years will

start from the date of minor attaining majority. In the case on

hand, it has to be noted that both the Courts have taken note of Section 6 and Articles 60 and 109 and particularly, taken note of

document Ex.P1 which is an undisputed document and the same

is signed and got marked by the plaintiffs themselves, wherein it

is stated that the age of plaintiff No.1 is 23 years and age of the

plaintiff No.2 is 27 years and the suit is not filed within 3 years

of attaining majority. Hence, the suit is hopelessly barred by

limitation and the same is not filed within the prescribed time

limit of 3 years.

1. When such being the material available on record,

the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have taken

note of the same and observed that suit ought to have filed the 23 suit within 3 years from the date of attaining majority. Hence, it

is very clear that as per Article 60, suit ought to have been filed

by the minors within 3 years from the date of attaining majority

and Article 109 will also not come to the aid of the appellants

that it should have been filed within 12 years, since the

limitation period starts from the date of alienee taking

possession and in the case on hand, possession was delivered in

the year 1995 itself and suit was filed in 2008 after 12 years.

When such being the case, question of reversing the findings of

the Trial Court does not arise and the very plaintiffs themselves

have declared their age as 23 and 27 years at the time of filing

the suit and given wrong age as 20 and 22 years while filing the

suit and the same is against their own material i.e., Ex.P1 which

is attested and got marked by themselves. When such being the

case, it is not a fit case to reverse the findings of the Trial Court

and the First Appellate Court. Hence, I answer substantial

questions of law No.1) and 2) accordingly.

24

1. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.

SD/-

(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE

ST