Karnataka High Court
Smt Ramarathnamma vs Mr Muniraju on 25 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22207
MSA No. 29 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.29 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAMARATHNAMMA
W/O LATE GANGADHARACHAR
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
2. BHEEMACHAR
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
2(a) SRI. B.MANJUNATHACHAR
S/O LATE BHEEMACHAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2(b) SRI. B. MANOHARACHAR
S/O LATE BHEEMACHAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
2(c) SMT. NAGARATHNA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF D/O LATE BHEEMACHAR
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2(a),
2(b) AND 2(c) ARE
R/AT BETTAKOTE VILLAGE
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
3. MR. DEVARAJ C,
S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22207
MSA No. 29 of 2021
HC-KAR
R/AT NO 28, 4TH CROSS
4TH MAIN, BSK 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 085.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. R.S.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR N., AND SRI.CHETHAN B.R., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. MR. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED AOBUT 61 YEARS
2. MR. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
3. MR. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT BETTAKOTE VILLAGE
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. UMESH M.N. AND
SRI. S.D.N.PRASAD, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 43
RULE 1(u) OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 01.02.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.15023/2020
ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DEVANAHALLI,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 07.02.2020 PASSED ON IA No.3 IN O.S.NO.730/2019
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE IA No.3 FILED UNDER ORDER
VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR
REJECTION OF PLAINT.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22207
MSA No. 29 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter was heard in part on the previous occasion and today, I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents in detail.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 01.02.2021 in R.A.No.15023/2020 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Bangalore Rural District at Devanhalli, setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. While setting aside the order, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC, the Court cannot consider the disputed issue and when the suit was also filed, the very contention was raised that earlier sale deeds are not challenged and the issue of limitation can be considered only after considering the evidence of the parties and the same is a mixed question of fact and law.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR
3. The counsel appearing for the appellants in his argument would vehemently contend that the very approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous in setting aside the order of the Trial Court. The counsel would vehemently contend that the learned Appellate judge failed to notice that the veracity of the pleadings of plaint, if not from the angle of fair trial, but from the angle of preliminary issues of limitation, jurisdiction, cause of action and Court fee. Though, the Trial Court is able to come to conclusion by its scrupulous surveillance that cause of action is fundamental to a civil suit and no civil suit can exist without a cause of action taking place before it. The counsel also would vehemently contend that though law is settled that Court has to take note of the contents of the plaint while considering an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, and also counsel brought to notice of this Court that nowhere pleaded with regard to fraud in the plaint with regard to execution of earlier sale deeds and when the same has not been challenged before the Court and subsequent sale deed cannot be challenged and issue of limitation was also taken note of by the Trial Court while considering an application filed -5- NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR under Order 7 Rule 11(d) and the First Appellate Court ought not to have reversed the finding of the Trial Court.
4. The counsel also in support of his argument relied upon the judgment reported in ILR (KAR)-2019-0-4739 in case of Durga Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. S.Rajagopala Reddy, wherein discussed in detail in paragraph No.6 that in the background of well established principle that only plaint must be seen for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, a question, whether these two transactions can be considered? would obviously arise. As has been pleaded by the plaintiff, if GPA was the only document that came into existence on 23.01.2002, definitely, the plaintiffs case that they are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property becomes an issue to be decided after recording of evidence, if not they must fail at the threshold. Now if para 10 of the plaint is meaningfully read, what the plaintiffs have stated is that GPA is an independent transaction and no consideration was paid for execution of the said GPA. That means they do not want to state anything about agreement of sale and affidavit. The plaint appears to have been drafted cleverly suppressing the material facts. This court, in a -6- NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR situation like this, has already taken a view in the case of R.Satish Kumar Singh Vs. Sri. Ram Singh Another (R.F.A 653/2014) that suppression of facts by the plaintiff may be a ground for rejection of plaint. The counsel referring this judgment would contend that in the case on hand also, not only suppression and even not challenged the earlier sale and plaint was cleverly drafted.
5. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in (2005) 5 SCC 548 in case of N.V. Shrinivasa Murthy and Others Vs. Mariyamma (Dead) by Proposed LRs. and Others. The counsel referring this judgment brought to notice of this Court that principles laid down in the judgment that necessity of claiming reliefs on which such title dependent and brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.10 and 11, wherein discussion was made that a suit merely for declaration that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit lands could not have been claimed without seeking declaration that the registered sale deed dated 5-5-1953 was a loan transaction and not a real sale. The counsel would vehemently contend that without challenging the earlier sale deed, there cannot be a fresh suit challenging the new transaction and also brought to -7- NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR notice of this Court paragraph Nos.12 and 15, wherein discussion was made regarding the relief of reconveyance of property under alleged oral agreement on return of loan has been deliberately omitted from the relief clause.
6. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives and Others, wherein also discussion was made with regard to Order 7 Rule 11(d)- limitation, wherein it is observed that plaint shall be rejected when from averments in plaint suit appears to be barred by any law. The counsel also in support of his argument brought to notice of this court discussion made in paragraph Nos.23.2, 23.4, 23.5, 23.6 and also 23.11 that test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.24.4, wherein discussion was made with regard to that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR
7. The counsel also in support of his argument relied upon the judgment reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 in the case of S.P.Chengal Varaya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Others and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.6 wherein discussion was made with regard to the facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the Court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. The counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that when the material placed on record i.e., plaint itself discloses that the very suit is barred by limitation and the same has been considered by the Trial Court while allowing an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) and hence the very order impugned passed by the First Appellate Court is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court.
8. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would vehemently contend that When the respondents have disputed the very earlier sale deeds and -9- NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR they are not parties to the sale deed and the said issue was disputed and disputed facts cannot be decided in an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d).
9. The counsel in support of his argument relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2000 KARNATAKA 46 in the case of M. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. Sub-Registrar, Bangalore and another and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.10, wherein discussion was made when a person who claims to be the owner or a person interested in an immovable property, finds that some one else has executed and registered a sale deed or other deed in regard to his property, claiming to be the owner or a person interested in the property, the appropriate course for him is to file a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs. The counsel would vehemently contend that when the very execution of documents are disputed and any title is claimed based on that document and the document is void ab initio and he may even choose to ignore the same and leave it to the person claiming title under such deed to establish his title in appropriate proceedings. A Court of law has the jurisdiction to declare a document to be void or even cancel a document. The issue with
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR regard to the very execution of earlier document is a matter in issue which has be decided.
10. The counsel also in support of his argument relied upon the recent judgment of Apex Court reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 975 in the case of P. Kumarakurubaran Vs. P. Narayanan and Others and brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph No.12.1, wherein it is observed that at this preliminary stage, while dealing with Order 7 rule 11 application, the averments made in the plaint must be taken at their face value and assumed to be true. Once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily. It becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation without permitting the parties to lead evidence, is legally unsustainable.
11. The counsel also in support of his argument relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in I.L.R 1991 KAR 1500 in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Mohammed Kunhi, wherein discussion was made with regard
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR to the issue of limitation i.e., Article 58 and 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was discussed, the scope and distinction 'First' after 'right to sue' in Column 3 of Article 58 not found in Article 120, not each and every entry in Record of Rights gives rise to cause of action, mere adverse entry in respect of property in possession of plaintiff not real threat to right of plaintiff. The counsel also referring this judgment also vehemently contend that an order has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner without making the respondents as parties to the proceedings and that cannot be assumed as a knowledge and when they are not parties, the very contention of the opponents cannot be considered and unless a opportunity is given to the parties, the issue of limitation also cannot be decided at threshold.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also considering the order passed by the Trial Court, the Trial Court while entertaining an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC considered the grounds set forth in the application as well as objections filed by the other side and formulated the point whether the plaint can be
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR rejected in view of the plaint averments made in the plaint. While considering the issue involved between the parties in paragraph No.15, discussed the issue of transfer of the property in the year 1969 and 1962 and also the sale deed dated 21.03.1964 and also entire extent of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.1/3 was owned by Gangadharachar and mutation was effected vide M.R.No.08/1995-96 and also taken note of the fact that said survey number was subsequently phoded as new Sy.No.121. Having considered this averment made in the documents produced by the plaintiff was also taken note of and comes to the conclusion that the defendants have made out a case for no cause of action for filing the suit and cause of action means the whole of the material facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to allege and prove and in order to succeed cause of action consists of a bundle of facts which give rise to enforce legal injury for redress in a Court of law and also comes to the conclusion that issue between the parties is when the sale deeds are narrated long back and also relying upon the judgment in (1977) 4 SCC 467 in the case of T. Arivandanam Vs. T.V.Satyapal & another, wherein an observation is made that when the plaint is manifestly vexatious, meritless and
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR groundless, in the sense that it does not disclose a clear right to sue, it would be right and proper to exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and also comes to the conclusion in paragraph No.19 that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration but have not challenged the sale transactions which were within their knowledge. Therefore, the plaintiff's suit is vexatious and hence, comes to the conclusion that application filed under Order VII Rule 11 attracts and allowed the application.
13. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo and having taken note of factual aspects of the case, in paragraph No.17 discussed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which has been relied upon by the Trial Court to reject the plaint and taken note of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Assistant Commissioner has observed that 4 acres of land granted in favour of Muniga was sold in the year 1962 and 1969 itself and also taken note of the fact that the said sale deeds which have been referred were also disputed suit property in favour of Gangadharachar and his vendors and also comes to the conclusion that neither the plaintiff nor their
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR father was party before the Assistant Commissioner, all the RTC extract produced by the plaintiff in support of plaint evidences the fact that till 2002-2003 stands in the name of Muniga, thereafter it entered in the name of Muniyappa, son of Muniga. The First Appellate Court also taken note of judgment of the Apex Court in Dhahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 and in paragraph No.20 discussed when there is a dispute with regard to the very execution of the sale deed and when the right of the plaintiffs which have been urged in the suit is taken note of and when the plaintiffs were not parties to the alleged sale deeds and the plaintiffs have sought for declaration in respect of later sale deed through which it is alleged that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have alienated the entire suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 and the issue involved with regard to the very alienation made in favour of defendant No.3 by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and though earlier suits are claimed as a basis, the First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material on record comes to the conclusion that when the relief is sought in respect of latest sale deeds and when the plaintiffs pleaded ignorance about the previous sale deeds alleging that those
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR transactions are fake and result of fraud, the plaintiffs need not seek for declaration in respect of alleged fraudulent sale deeds and such documents though registered cannot be a ground to dismiss the suit on limitation.
14. Now having considered the reasons assigned by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and there is a dispute with regard to the very execution of sale deed which the defendants rely upon of the year 1967, 1962 and 1969 and the plaintiffs also in the suit in paragraph No.4 taken the note of the claim made by the defendants and when specifically pleaded that they came to know about the claim made by the defendant No.3 when the defendants came near the suit schedule property and threat was caused to the plaintiffs and specific averments are made in paragraph No.4. It is settled law that while invoking Order 7 Rule 11, the Court must see the contents of the plaint and scope of the Trial Court is while invoking Order 7 Rule 11 only to see the averments made in the plaint and not the defence of the defendants. When such averments discloses cause of action and the same is pleaded with regard to the claim made by the defendant, that too, mutation was made in the name of husband of the defendant
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR No.1 on 11.07.2019 and contended that it is illegal and Gangadarachar is not the owner or in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, since the claim is made based on the family members have executed the sale deed i.e., by the Gangadarachar and the same has been disputed by the plaintiffs and the disputed issue involved between the parties has to be considered only after recording the evidence of the parties.
15. The First Appellate Court also in the judgment of 2025 referred by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 is aptly applicable to the case on hand and even the aspect of limitation would be considered only after recording the evidence and at the threshold, Order 7 Rule 11 cannot be invoked, whether suit is barred by limitation or not and the same is a mixed question of law and fact and issue of limitation also to be considered after recording the evidence and not at the threshold without recording the evidence of the parties when the issue of limitation also involves mixed question of law and fact. When such being the law settled, no doubt, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon several judgments with regard to revenue entries as well as invoking Order 7 Rule 11
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR and while invoking Order 7 Rule 11 regarding limitation is concerned, law is settled throughout that the same could be considered only after recording evidence and mixed question of fact and law cannot be decided in an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11. The disputed issue between the parties also to be adjudicated having recorded the evidence. When such being the case, when the First Appellate Court also applied its mind while reversing the judgment of Trial Court and the Trial Court only comes to the conclusion that earlier sale deeds are not challenged and the very contention of the plaintiffs in paragraph No.4 is also that they came to know about the claim made by the defendants based on the mutation of the sale deed, that too, on the basis of a sale deed, the revenue entries are changed in the name of the defendants and hence, questioned the same before the Court by filing a suit. When such being the issue involved between the parties, I do not find any error committed by the First Appellate Court in making an observation that matter requires trial and the issue of limitation also to be considered after recording the evidence and the same is also settled law. Therefore, I do not find any error in setting the order and remitting the matter to the Trial Court to
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22207 MSA No. 29 of 2021 HC-KAR consider the matter on merits. Hence, no grounds are made out to interfere with the findings of the First Appellate Court.
16. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62