Karnataka High Court
Sri Maltesh S/O Venkatesh Gujjar vs Sri Maltesh S/O Guddappa Havanur on 28 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9279
CRP No. 100076 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100076 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI MALTESH S/O. VENKATESH GUJJAR
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MRUTHUNJAYA NAGAR, 8TH CROSS,
RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581115
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRUTHVIRAJ P. HITTALAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MALTESH S/O. GUDDAPPA HAVANUR
AGE. 83 YEARS
OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RANEBENNUR
DIST. HAVERI-581115
Digitally signed by
2. SOMASHEKAR S/O. GUDDAPPA HAVANUR
CHANABASAPPA
K KALLUR AGE. 80 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
R/O. RANEBENNUR,
BENCH
Date: 2025.07.30
11:25:38 +0530
DIST. HAVERI 581115.
3. SRI ESHWAR S/O. GUDDAPPA HAVANUR
AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE
R/O. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI 581115.
4. SRI ANNAPPA S/O. GUDDAPPA HAVANUR
AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE
R/O. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI 581115.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9279
CRP No. 100076 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. SRI PADMA S/O. KESHAVA HAVANUR
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE
R/O. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI 581115.
6. SMT SHAKUNTALA W/O. NINGAPPA HAVANUR
AGE. 84 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI 581115.
7. SRI RAGHAVENDRA S/O. NINGAPPA HAVANUR
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS
R/O. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI 581115.
8. SRI GURURAJ S/O. NINGAPPA HAVANUR
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS
R/O. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI 581115.
9. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI KOMAL PRAKASH
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE
R/O. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI 581115.
...RESPONDENTS
CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO,
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.207/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RANEBENNUR AND SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER AT VIDE ANNEXURE-D DATED 04.04.2025
PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(A)
AND (D) CPC IN O.S.NO.207/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RANEBENNUR AND ALLOW
I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(A) AND (D) CPC,
BY REJECTING THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.207/2016 IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9279
CRP No. 100076 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The petitioner/defendant No.5 before the trial Court has preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Order passed on IA.1 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC in Original Suit No.207 of 2016 by the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Ranebennur.
2. Heard arguments on Admission. Sri Prithviraj P Hittalamani, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error and acted with material irregularity in law in rejecting the application. He would submit that a plain reading of the plaint, even accepting it as true, discloses that no enforceable legal right in favour of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' entire claim is founded on an alleged right of pre-emption, which by nature, is neither absolute nor perpetual and does not survive beyond partition. The admitted fact is established that a registered partition deed was executed between the family members whereby the suit property was allotted exclusively to defendants 1 to 4 and the partition deed which attained finality was acted upon, and is not under challenge. He would submit that once the partition is -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9279 CRP No. 100076 of 2025 HC-KAR effected and exclusive title is conferred, no ownership subsist and consequently, the right of pre-emption ceases to exist.
3. He would submit that the records reveal that defendants 1 to 4, who became absolute owners of the property, issued legal notice offering to sell the property to the plaintiffs at the prevailing market rate. Plaintiffs expressed general interest but did not accept the offer nor did they indicate any willingness to purchase the property on the stated terms. They failed to quote a counter-prise or invoke any process for valuation as may have been available to them. The sale was then completed in favour of the petitioner through a registered sale deed, pursuant to a concluded contract between the legally competent parties. His further submission is that the plaintiffs did not take any steps to act upon the offer or initiate any negotiations or arbitration for determination of fair price, thereby waving any purported right. He submits that in law, the right of pre-emption, even if contractually contemplated, cannot be enforced once the party seeking to assert it fails to demonstrate his readiness and willingness to purchase at the time of offer. Hence, the conduct of plaintiff is not acting upon the afforded opportunity and subsequently filing the suit solely -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9279 CRP No. 100076 of 2025 HC-KAR to challenge a registered transaction, will demonstrate clear malafides. He would further submit that the trial Court has erroneously deferred the question of maintainability of trial, despite being evident from the plaint itself that the suit is barred by law. The plaintiffs' assertion that the sale price was less than market value is not a ground for invalidating the sale, particularly when they failed to purchase the property when it was offered.
4. He further submits that the alleged undervaluation does not constitute cause of action in favour of plaintiffs who had no subsisting legal interest in the property at the time of sale. The suit is barred for reasons that the right of pre-emption is not a recurring or subsisting right post-partition. The partition indeed dissolved the joint family status and created exclusive ownership, which was never challenged by the plaintiff. He submits that under Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the right of preferential purchase applies only in cases of intestate succession and not after a mutually registered partition. Hence, he submits that the Registered Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner is a conclusive document and the plea of undervaluation would not be a legal ground for cancellation -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9279 CRP No. 100076 of 2025 HC-KAR by third parties with no subsisting ownership. Further, he would submit that in view of Sections 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the contention taken by the plaintiff are not admissible in evidence. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the revision petition. To substantiate his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COLONEL SHRAWAN KUMAR JAIPURIYAR @ SHRAWAN KUMAR JAIPURIYAR v. KRISHNA NANDAN SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in (2020)16 SCC 594; and the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Regular First Appeal No.1841 of 2012 decided on 29th April 2025, in the case of SRI M.V. GANESH PRASAD v. SRI M.L. VASUDEVA MURTHY, DEAD BY LRS AND OTHERS.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Defendant No.5 has raised all the above contentions before the trial Court. The trial Court has given its finding at paragraphs 8 to 15 of its order. The same reads thus:
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9279 CRP No. 100076 of 2025 HC-KAR "8. In order to substantiate his contentions, the Counsel for applicant has argued that, the present suit is fled only based upon an oral agreement of pre0 emption contract and the same was automatically terminated in view of subsequent registered partition deed as per the plaint averments. He also argued that, when the defendants No.1 to 4 offered to sell the suit property to the Plaintiffs through a second Notice dated 14.08.2015, the Plaintiffs have not shown their willingness nor accepted the offer. Thereafter, the applicant has purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed. Hence, the right of pre-emption is not at all vested with the Plaintiffs and no cause of action would arise to fle the present suit.
9. It becomes incumbent upon this court to verify the plaint averments to answer the same. No doubt that, the plaintiffs have fled the present suit seeking their pre-
emption rights and thereupon they also sought for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of applicant. At para No.5 of the Plaint it is alleged that, when a registered partition had taken place, an oral agreement was also acted upon between them to reserve their respective pre0emption rights. At para No.6 of the plaint also alleged that, though defendants No.1 to 4 claimed excess amount to the market value, they ignoring the acceptance of plaintiffs to purchase the suit property to the market value, they have illegally sold the same in favour defendant No.5. It is also averred and disclosed the cause of action to th suit from the date of sale deed dated 16.02.2016 executed in favour of the applicant. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9279 CRP No. 100076 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. When in the plaint the plaintiffs specifically avers their pre-emptive rights and questioned the validity of sale deed executed in favor of defendant No.5 with a specific allegation, it cannot be held that, there was no cause of action to file the suit or the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The Court cannot embark upon an enquiry on an application fled by the applicant under Order 7, Rule 11 to find out whether the statement is correct or not and then decide the application. The plaint to be rejected on the ground of non disclosure of cause of action what has to be seen is only the plaint averments. If the plaint averments disclose the cause of action, then the question of rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(a) would not arise. Hence, the decisions relied by the Counsel for applicant will not helpful or applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman Vs. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee held as under:
"While scrutinizing the plaint averments, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to ascertain the materials for cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant. Every fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9279 CRP No. 100076 of 2025 HC-KAR It is worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words "cause of action". A cause of action must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue."
12. This decision makes it very clear that when the court is dealing with an application for rejection of plaint all that this court can look into the plaint averments, nothing more or nothing less. Applying the same principle to the present case, the plaint discloses the cause of action and the same has to be verified in the full pledged trial and at this stage cannot be considered. Thus, the plaint discloses the cause of action for the purpose of maintaining the present suit.
13. The applicant also contended that, in view of alienation of suit property through a registered instrument, the present suit is barred by Section 91 & 92 of Evidence Act. Plain reading of those two sections would make it very clear that, the same can be applied while appreciating a document at the time of leading the evidence or at the time of Judgment. Mere execution of a registered sale deed itself will not bar to file a suit.
14. Thus, viewed from any angle the plaint cannot be rejected as claimed by the applicant. The plaint allegations and cause of action averred therein are mixed question of law and facts and the same is to be decided after full- fledged trial. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, the grounds taken in the present application cannot be used as a basis to reject a plaint
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9279 CRP No. 100076 of 2025 HC-KAR under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as claimed by applicant. Accordingly, I proceed to answer Points No.1 & 2 in the Negative.
15. Point No.3: In view of the above discussion on point No 1, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER I.A.No.I fled under Order VII Rule 11(a) &
(d) of CPC by defendant No.5 is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost."
6. On a careful examination of the impugned order passed by the trial Court, I do not find any error or legal infirmities in the said order. The contentions raised in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure can be taken on merits of the case. The plaintiffs have pleaded cause of action in paragraph 8 of the plaint. In the body of the plaint at paragraph 6 also, they have clearly narrated the facts of the case. This application was filed by defendant No.5 on 20th January 2017 to which objections was filed by the plaintiff on 02nd March 2018. After lapse of seven years, the trial Court has passed the order on 4th April 2025.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9279 CRP No. 100076 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. I have also gone though the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. The facts and circumstances of the case on hand are not consistent to the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel and at this stage, the decisions relied upon will not come to the aid of the revision petitioner. Hence, the revision petition is devoid of merits. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. The trial Court shall dispose of the case on the full-fledged trial independently, and on the basis of evidence to be placed by both the parties. Further, the trial Court is requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, as the matter is of the year 2016.
Registry to send the copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36