LexSMT. UMA DEVI AND ORS. versus SRI. ANAND KUMAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 521 : 2025 INSC 434 Smt. Uma Devi and Ors. v. Sri. Anand Kumar and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4718 of 2025) 02 April 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in remanding the matter back to the trial court, when trial court had allowed the application of the defendants/appellants u/Or.7 r.11 CPC, and dismissed the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs in 2023, holding that the suit did not disclose proper cause of action and was barred by limitation. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.7 r.11 – Return of plaint – Limitation – Plaintiffs-respondents, grandchildren of the original owner filed suit for partition in 2023 seeking partition of the ancestral joint immovable property – Defendants- appellants, remaining family members filed application u/o.7 r.11 seeking return of plaint as suit was barred by limitation – Case of the appellants that the property had already been partitioned in 1968 amongst the sons and had been mutated, and family members including aunt of the respondents had disposed their property through registered sale deeds in 1978 – Trial court allowed the application and dismissed the suit finding no cause of action – High Court holding that there were triable issues allowed the appeal of the respondents and remanded the matter back to the trial court: Held: Plaintiff failed to address the crucial question of when they became aware of the registered sale deeds – Pleadings suggest suppression of essential facts by the plaintiffs – Partition took place way back in 1968 and suit is filed in 2023, after a period of 55 years – Many of the family members had executed registered sale deeds in 1978 which have been attached – Registered document provides a complete account of a transaction to any party interested in the property – Predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the * Author 522 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 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 plaintiff’s father, these sale deeds were not challenged, nor partition was sought – Thus, the suit filed in 2023 by the plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law – Plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years – Trial court rightly allowed the application of the appellants u/or.7 r.11 holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a meaningless litigation, it did not disclose a proper cause of action and was barred by limitation – No justifiable reasons for the appellate court to have remanded the matter to the trial court – Impugned judgment set aside – Or.41 r.1. [Paras 11-13, 17, 18] Case Law Cited Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr. [2011] 11 SCR 848 : (2012) 1 SCC 656; Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844; Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [2017] 5 SCR 294 : (2017) 13 SCC 174; Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali [2020] 5 SCR 694 : (2020) 7 SCC 366 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Return of plaint; Suit barred by limitation; Suit for partition; Ancestral joint immovable property; Oral partition; Registered sale deed; Sleeping on rights; Remand of the matter; Cause of action; Limitation; Mutation; Suppression of essential facts; Meaningless litigation. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4718 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2025 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA No. 2374 of 2024 With Civil Appeal No. 4719 of 2025 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 523 Smt. Uma Devi and Ors. v. Sri. Anand Kumar and Ors. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: C.A. Sundaram, Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Advs., Abhishek Gupta, Ms. Roshini Musa, Dashrath T. M., Zafar Inayat, Praful Shukla, Nikhil Kumar Singh, Sudhanshu Prakash, Ms. Anisha Agarwal, Ms. Divija Mahajan, Kanishk Sinha. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Akhila Wali, Nanda Kumar K B, Abhishekh Singh, Ms. Sunayna Agarwal, Santhosh N, M/s. Nuli & Nuli, Saket Gogia, Ms. Gauri Pande, Ms. Sheetal Maggon, Mansingh, Dhawesh Pahuja, Mrs. Vandana Gupta, Rahul Gupta. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants before this C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.