Karnataka High Court
Sri M Ramaswamy vs Smt Govindamma on 15 October, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41208
RFA No. 2312 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2312 OF 2023 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
SRI M RAMASWAMY
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT DODDATHOGURU VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE 560 100.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AKASH V T.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT GOVINDAMMA
W/O SRI NAGARAJA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SRI NAGARAJ REDDY,
S/O LATE JAMMA REDDY
Digitally RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2, BOTH ARE
signed by R/AT NO.513, 16TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
CHANDANA VI SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 034.
BM
Location: 3. SRI RAMACHANDRA REDDY
High Court of S/O LATE SUBBAREDDY,
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/A DODDATHOGARU VILLAGE,
BEGURE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 100.
4. SRI JAYAPPA REDDY,
S/O LATE GURUPPAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
5. SRI VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
S/O LATE GURUPPAREDDY,
AGED 71 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41208
RFA No. 2312 of 2023
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5 ARE
R/AT KONAPPANA AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BEGURE HOBLI,BANGALORE - 560 001.
6. SRI M NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE SRI MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
7. SMT. YASHODAMMA
D/O LATE SRI MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
8. SRI M RAJAPPA
S/O LATE SRI MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
9. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
DEFENDANTS NO.7 TO 9 ARE
REISIDNG AT DODATHOGURU VILLAGE
BEGURU HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE.
10. SMT. YELLAMMA,
W/O LATE YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
11. SMT. MANJULA
D/O LATE YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
12. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA,
D/O LATE YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.10-12 ARE,
R/AT 39/1, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
GANGAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
OLD MADIVALA, BANGALORE - 560 068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2
SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR.S, ADVOCATE FOR R-6, R-7, R-8 & R-10 TO R-12
R-3 SERVED & UNREPRESNTED,
NOTICE TO R-4 IS D/W VIDE ORDER DATED: 15.09.2025.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41208
RFA No. 2312 of 2023
HC-KAR
VIDE ORDER DATED: 15.09.2025 APPEAL STANDS
ABATED AGAINST R-5 & R-9)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2023 PASSED ON I.A NO.III IN OS.NO.1026/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER
ORDER VII RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1026/2013 is directed against the impugned order on I.A.No.3 and consequent judgment and decree dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, whereby the said application filed by the respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was allowed by the trial court, which rejected the plaint and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant - plaintiff.
2. Though the matter is posted for hearing on I.A.1/2025 for paper publication in respect of respondent No.2, since he has already entered appearance through his learned counsel, I.A.1/2025 is dismissed as not pressed as requested by the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR appellant. Further, with the consent of both sides, who have produced copies of the plaint along with documents, I.A.No.3 and objections to I.A.No.3, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranks before the trial court.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents - defendants for declaration that the sale deed dated 15.11.1971 executed by the 4th defendant in favour of 2nd defendant and the gift deed dated 05.07.2006 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant were sham transactions and not binding upon the plaintiff and to effect partition of the suit schedule property and to put the plaintiff in separate possession of his alleged share in the suit schedule property and for other reliefs. The defendants 5 to 12 were said to be the family members of the plaintiff.
5. The defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance through their counsel and in addition to filing their written statement, also filed the instant application I.A.No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same did not -5- NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR disclose any cause of action and was barred by limitation. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiff, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the plaint and consequently, dismissing the suit by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which is assailed in the present appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the material on record.
7. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the appeal and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court fell in error in failing to appreciate that the plaintiff was not aware of the sale deed dated 15.11.1971 or gift deed dated 05.07.2006 and immediately upon coming to know about the same, the plaintiff instituted the instant suit, which was well within limitation and the trial court committed an error in failing to consider and appreciate the plaint averments in this regard, while passing the impugned order. It was also submitted that in addition to the prayer for declaration that the sale deed and gift deed were not binding upon the plaintiff, he had also sought for partition and separate possession of his legitimate share -6- NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR in the suit schedule property and the said prayer cannot be said to be barred by limitation and the trial court failed to consider this aspect of the matter also in the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Salim D Agboatwala & others vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & others - (2021) 17 SCC 100;
(ii) P.Kumarakurubaran vs. P.Narayanan & others
- 2025 INSC 598.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the appeal and that the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Raghawendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh - (2020) 16 SCC 601;
(ii) Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar - (2007) 10 SCC 59;
(iii) Krishna Murthy vs. Prabhavathi Builders and Anr. - MFA No. 8059/2022 dated 23.08.2024;
(iv) Rama Niwas vs. Bano - (2000) 6 SCC 685;
(v) Bina Muralidhar Hemdev vs. Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev - (1999) 5 SCC 222;
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR
(vi) Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Haji Abdulgafur - (1971) 1 SCC 757;
(vii) Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church vs. Sri Bala - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 48;
(viii) ITC Limited vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal - (1998) 2 SCC 70;
(ix) Shub Karan Bubna vs. Sita Saran Bubna - (2009) 9 SCC 689;
(x) Azam Baig vs. Noor Baig - RFA No. 220/2022 dated 11.08.2023.
9. Both sides have produced copies of the plaint, documents produced by the plaintiff along with the plaint before the trial court, I.A.No.3 and objections to the same, all of which are relevant and germane for the purpose of present appeal.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
11. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the trial court committed an error in passing the impugned order rejecting the plaint and consequently, dismissing the suit.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR
12. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the relevant portions of the plaint, which reads as under:-
"3. The property bearing Sy. No,96/7 measuring 1 acre 06 guntas originally granted in favour of one late. Sri. Munthimma situated at Doddathoguru Village, Begure Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, The said Sri. Munithimma is the great grand father of the plaintiff and defendants No 6 to 8 herein, the said Munithimma and plaintiff and defendants No 6 to 8 are belongs to the Adikarnataka community. Which is morefully described in the schedule property.
4. It is submitted that, the schedule property originally granted to the ancestor of the plaintiff and defendants no 6 to 9 herein, the plaintiff and defendants no 6 to 9 are the brothers and the defendant no.9 is the wife of the plaintiff and defendants no 6 to 8 uncle herein, the defendants no 1 to 5 are the alleged purchasers.
5. It is submitted that, Sri. Munithimma had only son by name late Sri. Raghavappa, the said late Sri. Raghavappa had two sons namely late Sri. Muniyappa and late Sri. Yallappa, the plaintiff and defendants No 6 to 8 are sons of late Sri. Muniyappa, and the defendants No 9 is the wife of late Yallappa, after demise of Sri. Munithimma, the revenue records were transferred in the name plaintiff father Sri. Muniyappa the certificate copy -9- NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR hissa survey tippani of the RTC are produced herewith kind perusal of this Hon,ble court.
5 (a) the plaintiff submit that, the plaintiffs and defendants No 6 to 8 are constituted a Hindu joint family, the suit schedule property is ancestral family property of plaintiffs and defendants No 6 to 8. It is submitted that the property was originally granted in the name of the great grandfather of the plaintiffs namely Sri. Raghavappa, the revenue records were Mutated in the name of the late Raghavappa, it is submitted that during the life time Sri. Raghavappa, has not sold not parted any portion of the schedule property to any body, and died left his Lrs of plaintiffs and defendants No 6 to 8 to succeed the schedule property, however the plaintiffs has demanded the defendants no 6 to 8 to effect the partition and separate possession of their share of 1/4th share in the suit schedule property, however defendants no 6 to 8 are collusion with the other defendants and trying to alienate the suit schedule property, it is becomes very clear from the above facts that the transaction, the transaction of the defendants No 1 and 3 and other are shame and bogus transactions, the plaintiffs and defendants No 6 to 8 are having equal share in the suit schedule property. I submit that, I have demanded my rightful share to the defendants No 6 to 8 on 20.10.2011 and also On 25.10.2011. by that time the defendants are refused to effect the partition, hence this suit for partition.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR
9. It is submitted that, on enquired about the revenue records mutated in the name of defendant no 1 and here in, at that time of the plaintiff came to know that bogus and sham transaction between the defendant No 1 and 2 by virtue of sale deed vide document no 4603/1971-72 dated 15.11.1971 in favour of 2nd defendant by the defendant No 4, behind back of the plaintiff and defendant No 6 to 9, without having any kind of right by the defendant No 4 herein, hence the alleged sale transaction is not binding on the plaintiffs.
10. It is submitted that, the things thus being so the 201 defendants has executed the alleged gift deed vide document no BNG(U) BLR(S)8766/2006-07 dated 5.7.2006 in favour of the 1st defendant to create the encumbrance and multicity of transaction, without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and defendants No 6 to 9 herein, hence, the said alleged gift deed dealt between defendants No 1 and 2 is not binding on the plaintiff and defendants no 6 to 9 herein.
11. Thereafter, the plaintiff has taken the certified copies of the alleged regd, sale deed & gift deed from the concerned sub register, after perusal of the alleged deeds, it had come to his notice that the defendants 1,2 and 4 are collided with the each other, has alleged have executed the alleged sale deed & gift deed in respect of schedule property to the defendants No 1 and 2, for the alleged sale deed & gift which are registered as doc no; 4603 dated 15.11.71, and gift deed vide document No
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR BNG (U) BLR (S) 8766/2006-07 dated 5.7.2006 are herewith produced herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court.
12. The whole-alleged transactions effected on the schedule property are bogus and sham transactions, which effected with an evil intention to knock of the schedule property from the hands of the plaintiff and defendants No 6 to 9 by illegal means to have wrongful gain and hence the defendants No 1.2 and 4 have collectively played fraud on the plaintiff. the alleged sale transactions and gift transactions for the schedule property effected between the defendant no 1,2 and 4, are fraudulent transaction for the simple reason that, the schedule property was granted under the schedule caste in favour of the great grandfather of the plaintiff herein, nor their ancestor nor the plaintiff and defendants No 6 to 9 were not parted schedule property in favour of anybody, hence the alleged documents are fraudulent one and do not have any support of law for another reason that they had through knowledge about the schedule property is granted to the schedule caste under the free grant scheme the plaintiff and defendants No 6 to 9 are succeeded to the schedule property and thus the alleged sale deed and gift deed effected and defendants No 1,2 & 4 are not valid in the eye of law, the said sale Deed and gift deeds are unenforceable document and by which, the defendants could not derive any manner of right, title and interest and the same is null and void document under law.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR
16. The cause of action arose for the suit when the plaintiff noticed about the alleged transaction on 20.10.2011 when order copy received from the ac and the document. And subsequently coming within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court, since the subject matter of the suit property is worth about Rs. 14,50,000/-."
13. A perusal of the aforesaid averments made in the plaint will indicate that it is specifically contended by the plaintiff that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Munithimma, who had a son by name Raghavappa, who had two sons Yellappa and Muniyappa and that while the plaintiff and defendants 6 to 8 were the sons of late Muniyappa, the defendant No.9 was the wife of late Yellappa; in this context, it is pertinent to note that except for a self- styled / self-serving genealogical tree produced along with the plaint, there is absolutely no material produced by the plaintiff to establish his alleged relationship with Munithimma; in fact, there are no pleadings as regards the dates of demise of plaintiff's alleged great grand father Munithimma, grand father Raghavappa or the dates of demise of the plaintiff's father Muniyappa or his brother Yellappa and relevant material particulars and details in this regard are conspicuously absent in the plaint; further, in view of the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR specific contention of the plaintiff that he claims right over the suit schedule property by virtue of being the great grand son of Munithimma, there are wholly inadequate, bald, vague and omnibus averments made in the plaint for the purpose of prima - facie establishing his relationship with Munithimma and his right over the suit schedule property and as such, in the absence of necessary averments required for the purpose of tracing the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was fully justified in rejecting the plaint by passing the impugned order.
14. A perusal of the plaint averments will also indicate that except stating that the plaintiff's grand father Munithimma was the alleged owner of the suit schedule property, his source of title by way of an alleged grant has neither been pleaded nor established by the plaintiff in the plaint and its documents; in fact, all that the plaintiff states is that Munithimma was granted the suit schedule property without material particulars and details in this regard and none of the revenue records indicate the name of the said Munithimma, the alleged great grand father of the plaintiff; the alleged name of Munithimma and his son Raghavappa found in
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR one of the survey records produced by the plaintiff is contrary to the plaint averments, wherein it is contended that Raghavappa is son of Munithimma; so also, the name of Muniyappa (alleged father of plaintiff) said to be found in column No.12 (2) of the RTCs for the year 1969-70 to 1973-74, do not show the name of Muniyappa's father as Raghavappa and column No.9 contains the name of one Munihanumaiah, who is not even referred to in the plaint. In other words, the plaint averments as regards alleged relationship between the parties, source of title and possession of the plaintiff and his ancestors / family members are mutually contradictory, inconsistent and destructive with the documents produced along with the plaint and consequently, I am of the view that the trial court was fully justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the plaint on this ground also.
15. A perusal of the plaint averments will indicate that according to the plaintiff, the cause of action for the relief of declaration in relation to the sale deed dated 15.11.1971 executed by the 4th defendant in favour of 2nd defendant and the gift deed dated 05.07.2006 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant were sham transactions and not binding upon the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR plaintiff, said to arise in the year 2011 when the plaintiff came to know about the same, when he received a copy of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner; however, the said order produced by the plaintiff dated 24.03.2009 will indicate that plaintiff was neither a party nor had received the said order and as such, reliance could not have been placed upon the said document for the purpose of contending that the suit was not barred by limitation. Further, the relief of partition and the cause of action in this regard as against defendants 6 to 9 - alleged family members would arise only if the relief of declaration in relation to sale deed and gift deed interse between defendants 1 to 4 who are not family members of the plaintiff are held to be null and void and so long as the said documents cannot be assailed in the absence of any tangible right available to the plaintiff and the said relief of declaration being barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the question of considering the consequential relief of partition would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and on this ground also, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR
16. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial court has borne in mind the principles underlying the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and has proceeded to reject the plaint by passing the impugned order as hereunder:-
"7. Point No.1: As could be seen from the records, it appears that the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and consequential relief to declare the sale deed and gift deed, transaction dealt between the defendants No.1 to 4 under the deed dated 05.07.2006 and the sale deed dated 15.11.1971 and the same are not binding on his share.
8. According to the plaintiff, he and the defendants No.6 to 8 constitute. Hindu joint family and the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of himself and the defendants No.6 to 8 and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. Recently, while going through the revenue records, the plaintiff came to know that name of the defendant No.1 is mutated in the records and the defendant No.1 and 2 have created the gift deed and sale deed behind the back of the plaintiff and the defendants No.6 to '8 and hence he is questioning the said transactions and sought for partition.
9. After appearance of the defendants, the defendant No.1 has filed the present application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC to reject the plaint, on the ground that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR
10. In this backdrop, if we carefully gone through the plaint averments, in para 9 of the plaint, it is clearly stated by the plaintiffs that on enquiry about the revenue records mutated in the name of the defendant No.1, at that time he came to know about the bogus and sham transactions between the defendants No.1 and 2 by virtue of the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant executed by the defendant No.4 behind their back. Further the 2nd defendant had executed the alleged gift deed dated 05.07.2006 in favour of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has not pleaded when he came to know about the said transaction. No doubt, in para 16 of the plaint, the cause of action arose for the suit is shown as 20.10.2011 when the order copy received by him from the Assistant Commissioner.
11. The learned counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 vehemently contended that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law, as alleged gift deed is of the year 2006 and the sale deed is of the year 1971. Both the deeds have been challenged in the year 2013 and as such the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law. In the prayer column, the plaintiff has not sought for cancellation of the said deeds on the ground that the same are obtained by fraud. Without seeking the relief of cancellation of the said deeds, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and no reliefs can be granted by this court.
12. The learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 2022 SC 4724 in the case of Sri C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Senthil and
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR Others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that para 7.7 "Even the averments and allegations with respect to knowledge of the plaintiffs averred in paragraph 19 can be said to be too vague. Nothing has been mentioned or which date and how the plaintiffs had the knowledge that the document was obtained by fraud and/or misrepresentation. It is averred that the alleged fraudulent sale came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only when the plaintiffs visited the suit property. Nothing has been mentioned when the plaintiffs visited the suit property. It is not understandable how on visiting the suit property, the plaintiffs could have known the contents of the sale deed and/or the knowledge about the alleged fraudulent sale".
The above said observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand. In the present case, the plaintiff has not averred about his knowledge, when he came about the alleged execution of gift deed and sale deeds and which were obtained by the defendant No.2 by fraud and misrepresentation. Therefore the present suit is hopelessly barred by time.
13. Recently the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shanthilal Shakarbhai Patel (Dead) by LRs Vs. Patel Dalsukhbhai Nanabhai (Dead) by LRs. reported in AIR 2023 GUJARAT 102, it is held that:
Whenever a document is registered, the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge. In other cases where a fact could be discovered by due diligence, then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the plaintiff, because a party cannot be allowed to extend period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge. It is held that in other case where a fact could be discovered by due diligence then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the plaintiff because a party cannot be allowed to extent period
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge.
By keeping the above said principles of law, if we analyse the plaint averments of the present suit on hand, it is apprehended that the allegations with regard to fraud committed by the defendants, very conveniently and in order to frustrate the gift deed and sale deeds have been obtained by the defendants No.1 and 2 in the year 1971 and 2006. Since the knowledge of plaintiff in obtaining the said sale deeds would of the year 1971 and 2006. It is also not in dispute that the revenue records and entry in respect of said gift deed and sale deed were effected way back in the year 1971 and which are questioned in the year 2013. The so called alleged fraudulent document as pleaded by the plaintiff are manifestly vexatious and without any merit and does not disclose right to sue and as such, this court ought to have exercised its powers powers under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint.
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further relied on the judgment reported in ILR 2022 KAR. 992 in case of Smt. Mallamma and Others Vs. Shri Mallegowda @ Karigowda and Others. In para 11 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court has held that "Where the circumstances of settled legal preposition of law that issue of limitation is normally a mixed question of law and facts. In this case, the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed with it namely sale deed and the notice prior to the institution of the suit goes to show that the suit is barred by limitation". It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the cause of action appears to be illusory
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR and it is relevant to take note of the reliefs claimed in the suit.
15. In respect of cause of action is concerned, the plaintiff has averred in para 16 of the plaint that he has noticed about the alleged transaction on 20.10.2011 when he received copy of the orders from the Assistant Commissioner. It is worth to note that the plaintiff was participated in the proceedings held before the revenue authorities way back i the year-2005-06. If at all he was aggrieved with the gift deed and sale deeds as alleged by him, he could have challenged the same before the civil court in the year 2005-06 itself. But he has not done so for the reasons best known to himself. At this juncture I would like to rely upon the decision reported in (2020)7 SCC 366 in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through LRs and others, wherein the apex court has held that while deciding an application for rejection of plaint the court can look only into the averments in the plaint which pleading also include the documents filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint. The relevant para 12.7 is extracted hereunder;
"the test for exercising the power under order VII rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relief upon, would the same result in a decree being passed",
16. Looking from any angle, it appears that the plaintiff has clearly shown the cause of action which was created by clever drafting. Such apprehension cannot be entertained and the suit cannot be proceeded without any
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR proper pleadings. Apart from this, the period of limitation was saved under Section 58 and 59 of Limitation Act is 3 years which commenced from the date when the right to sue first accrues as per the plaint averments and documents relied by the plaintiff in the year 2006-06. The plaintiff has questioned the alleged sale deed and gift deed before the revenue authorities, from that date onwards, within three years the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit before this court. But the present suit is filed in the year 2013. After lapse of 9 years the suit has been filed. On reading of the plaint and the documents relied upon, it is clear that the plaintiff has admitted cause of action, but the sale deed is of the year 1971 and the gift deed is of the year 2006. Thus it is made clear that the plaintiff has filed the suit after lapse of the prescribed period as stated above.
17. Under these circumstances, this type of frivolous suits cannot be entertained and it is nothing but the wastage of precious time of the court. With these observations, I am of the opinion that there is no cause of action to file this suit by the plaintiff seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. Therefore I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative."
17. As rightly held by the trial court, the plaintiff who does not refer to or produce any documents subsequent to alleged revenue records and survey records only up to the year 1974, is clearly guilty of suppression of material facts and is attempting to
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41208 RFA No. 2312 of 2023 HC-KAR put forth a false and frivolous claim by creating an illusory cause of action by clever drafting, which was not sufficient to save the suit which was hopelessly barred by limitation. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was fully justified in passing the impugned order which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal.
18. Insofar as the various judgments relied upon by both sides are concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances narrated hereinbefore, coupled with the fact that the said decisions would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case and as such, the same are not elaborately dealt with for the purpose of the present judgment.
19. In view of the forgoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.