Party Interested In Property Deemed To Know About Sale Deed From Registration Date : Supreme Court Rejects Partition Suit Filed After 45 Yrs

Noting that the limitation period begins from the date of registration of the sale deed, which constitutes constructive notice, the Supreme Court on Thursday (April 2) overturned the High Court's decision upholding a decree in a partition suit filed 45 years after the sale deed was registered.

Citing Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656, the Court noted that the registration of the sale deed constitutes a public notice, and any suit for partition filed after 12 years (Art. 65 of Limitation Act, 1963) would be barred by law liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

Reference was made to the judgment in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr, which observed that there is a constructive notice from the date of registration of the sale deed and that the presumption under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act will apply.

Section 3 of the TP Act says "where any transaction relating to immoveable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration".

Applying this principle of law, the Court said that it can be assumed that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale deed executed by their aunt in 1978.

“Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the partition that took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them being registered documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma, these sale deeds have not been challenged, neither has partition been sought. Thus, the suit (filed in the year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years.”, the Court observed.

The bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran, heard the case, which concerned a partition suit over ancestral immovable property in Bengaluru.

Briefly put, the property was allegedly partitioned orally in 1968, reflected in revenue records. The registered sale deeds were executed in 1978 by some family members. The Respondent/plaintiffs filed the partition suit only in 2023 (55 years after partition, 45 years after sale deeds).

The trial court dismissed the suit terming it as barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

The High Court reversed the trial court's decision remanding the matter back for the trial court's reconsideration noting that a triable issue existed.

Challenging the High Court's decision, the Appellants/defendant approached the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Dhulia observed that the plaintiff's failure to file a suit of partition within the limitation period justified the trial court to dismiss the suit as barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

“In our considered opinion, the Trial Court had rightly allowed the application of the defendants/appellants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a meaningless litigation, that it did not disclose a proper cause of action and was barred by limitation. There were thus no justifiable reasons for the appellate court to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court.”, the court observed.

Reference was also drawn to the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 where it was observed:

“The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.”

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the Appeal.

Case Title: SMT. UMA DEVI AND ORS. VERSUS SRI. ANAND KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR Ms. Roshini Musa, Adv. Mr. Dashrath T.m, Adv. Mr. Zafar Inayat, Adv. Mr. Praful Shukla, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, AOR Ms. Anisha Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Divija Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Kanishk Sinha, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K B, Adv. Mr. Abhishekh Singh, Adv. Ms. Sunayna Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Santhosh N, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Saket Gogia, Adv. Ms. Gauri Pande, Adv. 2 Ms. Sheetal Maggon, Adv. Mr. Mansingh, Adv. Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, AOR Mrs. Vandana Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR