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
4. 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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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
8. 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 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.
9. 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 reported in AIR 1985 KARNATAKA
143. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 the judgments, this Court has to analyze the material
available on record.
12. 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.
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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 of Limitation Act, the ultimate decision of the learned
Civil Judge in dismissing the suit on the question of limitation will
have to be upheld.
19. 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.
20. 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
60. 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.
109. 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.
110. 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.
113. 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 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. 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.
22. 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 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.
23. The Apex Court also in paragraph No.25 of the said
judgment 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
25. 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.
26. No doubt., learned counsel appearing for the
appellants relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in K.C.
LAXMANA‘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.
27. 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.
28. 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 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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
32. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGEST