Karnataka High Court
M/S Provident Housing Limited vs Manjula on 18 November, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47709
CRP No. 143 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 143 OF 2023 (IO)
BETWEEN:
M/S.PROVIDENT HOUSING LIMITED
130/1, ULSOOR,
BANGALORE - 560 042
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER - LEGAL AND
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
B PRAVEEN KUMAR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANJULA
W/O HANUMAIAH
D/O LATE RAJANNA
Digitally AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
signed by
MALATESH
KC 2. GOVINDARAJU
Location: S/O LATE RAJANNA
HIGH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. LOKESH
S/O LATE RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1/3,
SAMPANIGEHALLI, JAKKUR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47709
CRP No. 143 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
5. S M VENKATASWAMY
S/O LATE MUJNIYAPPA
AND GRAND S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT SAMPNIGEHALLI,
JAKKUR POST,
NEAR MADAGAVAMMA TEMPLE,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
6. MUNISWAMY
S/O LATE ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1/3,
SAMPIGENAHALLI , JAKKUR POST,
NEAR NAVAMI APARTMENT
BENGALURU - 560 064.
7. ANAND
S/O LATE BYLAMMA
AND MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
8. MALLESH
S/O LATE BYLAMMA
AND MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
9. VENKATESH
S/O LATE BYLAMMA
AND MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NEAR RELINACE TOWER
SAMPEHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU -560 064
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47709
CRP No. 143 of 2023
HC-KAR
10. KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O LATE SMT.PUTTALAKSHMAMMA
AND Y.RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.163
3RD CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD,
CITY RAJMAHAL VILAS LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
11. SMT.KEMPAMMA
W/O L.D.KUMARASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.89/11
SRIRAMPURAM MAIN ROAD,
AMRUTHALLI, JAKKUR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
12. SUBAMMA S
W/O S VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT NO.860 'D' BLOCK,
SAHAKARANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 092.
13. BALARAMAIAH, S/O VENKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT NO.316, 3RD CROSS,
M.S.R NAGAR, NELLUR
ANDHRA PRADESH - 524 003.
14. DEVENDRA, S/O S VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.550, F BLOCK,
SAHAKARANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 092.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.F.V.KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
Vide order dated 06.05.2024, service of notice to R6 to R14 is
dispensed with)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47709
CRP No. 143 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE ORDER ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.4758/2020 ON
THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU REJECTING I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER
7 RULE 11 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Shri.Anandarama.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri.V.F.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. Defendant No.10 in O.S.No.4758 of 2020 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application vide I.A.No.4 filed under 7 Rule 11 of CPC by order dated 06.12.2022 by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.3).
3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
-5-NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR A suit came to be filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 5 seeking following reliefs, in respect of the following properties:
a) To effect partition of the suit schedule property and allot the shares of the plaintiffs to the extent of 1/3rd and put them on their separate possession by metes and bounds.
b) To declare that the registered Sale Deed dated 6/02/1995 executed by late Bylamma and other registered as Document No.7443/1994-95 in favour the 5th Defendant's father in respect of the Suit Schedule Property.
c) The alleged Sale Deed dated 10/07/2002 registered as Document No.3228/2002-03 executed by mother of the 5th Defendant late Puttalakshamma in favour of the 6th Defendant.
d) The alleged registered Sale Deeds dated 27/05/2004 executed by 6th Defendant 7th in favour of the 7th to 9th Defendants registered as Document No.3875/2004-005, Document No.3878/2004-05 and Document No.3879/ 2004-05 respectively, registered in the offices of the sub-registrar Yelahanka.
e) The alleged registered Sale Agreement entered into between the 9th Defendant in favour of 10th Defendant 2/5/2016 document No.YAN/100625 stored in CDNo. YAND 627 registered in the office of the sub-registrar Yelahanka are not binding on the shares of -6- NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR the Plaintiffs over the Suit Scheduled Property.
f) And grant such other reliefs along with cost of this suit in the interest of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the land bearing survey No.3 measuring 22 guntas out of total extent to 8.23 guntas, situated at Sampigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore Dist as here under.
East by: Property of Survey No.2/1 West by: Property of Survey No.6/7 North by: Remaining land of same survey number South by: Road
4. No doubt in the plaint, there are no necessary particulars with regard to the age and death of the common propositus and how the property thereafter devolved on the members of the family.
5. However, the plaintiffs claim that they are the children of A.Rajanna who had a share in the suit property. As admittedly, suit property was 'thoti inam' -7- NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR land and after Inam Abolition Act came into force, after filing an application by the head of the joint family, re-
conveyance has been made and plaintiffs claim under him who has been re-granted the property.
6. In the meantime, there was an alienation of the suit property in the year 1995 and subsequently, several hands have changed in respect of the suit property.
7. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants appeared before the Court and defendant No.10 filed written statement and also an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation and also on the ground of want of cause of action to the suit.
8. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and the learned Trial Judge after hearing the arguments of the parties, noted the fact that the plaintiffs are not seeking cancellation of the sale deed but they are -8- NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR seeking their share and therefore, rejected the application by the impugned order.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.10 is before this Court in this revision petition.
10. Shri.Anandarama.K., learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the plaint is suffering from want of necessary particulars. He pointed that Shri.A.Rajanna being the party to the sale deed in the year 1995, his children could not lay a claim seeking share in the suit property and thus, there is no cause of action to the suit.
11. He would further contend that alienation of the year 1995 is now sought to be challenged in the year 2020. Therefore, the suit is per-se barred by limitation and sought for admission of the revision petition for further consideration.
-9-NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR
12. In support of his arguments, he has relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court:
i) (2025) 5 SCC 198 Uma Devi & Others Vs. Anand Kumar & Others
iii) Judgment dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of M.Ramaswany Vs. Govindamma & Others in R.f.a.No.2312/2023.
iv) (2007) 15 SCC 174
Janardham Prasad Vs. Ramdas
v) (1977) 4 SCC 467
T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal & Another
vi) (2020) 7 SCC 366 Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyaniji Bhanusali (Gajra) by LRs & Others
vii) (2020) 16 SCC 601 Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh by LRs
13. He invited the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraphs, which are culled out hereunder for ready reference:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR (2025) 5 SCC 198 Uma Devi & Others Vs. Anand Kumar & Others:
13. A registered document provides a complete account of a transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court in the case of Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana held as under (SCC pp. 664-65, para 15):
"15.....'17......Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed.
18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents.
Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified".
14. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered sale deeds
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR (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.
15. The learned senior counsel for the defendants/appellants, Mr.Sundaram, relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust Vs. Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle to substantiate the contention that the suit was barred by limitation. It was observed as follows:
"22.. When a portion of the property has been conveyed by court auction and registered in the first instance and when another portion has been conveyed by a registered sale deed in 1952, there is a constructive notice from the date of registration and the presumption under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, comes into operation. The possession, in the present case, also has been rested with the appellant before several decades, which operates as notice of title....
23. - 24
25. Continuing further with the plea of limitation, the Courts below have held that 23 (1977) 4 SCC 467 the question of the suit being barred by limitation can be decided at the time of trial as the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. Though the question of limitation generally is mixed question of law and facts, when upon meaningful reading of the plaint, the court can come to a conclusion that under the given circumstances, after dissecting the vices of clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action, the suit is hopelessly barred and the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11".
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR 2024) 15 SCC 675 Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust & Others Vs. Shrimanth Chatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & another:
30. In the present case, the right to sue had first accrued to the predecessors of the plaintiff, when the properties were brought for sale by the court. No challenge was made to the court auction or to the conveyance in 1952. At this length of time, we can only assume that the predecessors of the Plaintiff had not initiated any proceedings as according to them, either it was a grant of soil or during that period, the rights had not resumed. The plaintiff had become a major by 1984.By virtue of Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the plaintiff has a right to seek a declaration that the alienation of a property in which he had a right, was void within 3 years. Though the Article prima facie looks to be applicable only to cases, where there was an alienation by the guardian, we feel that the period of limitation would be applicable even when a third party had alienated the share or property of a minor. Even otherwise, Article 58 would come into operation and the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within three years from the date when he became a major to seek any declaratory relief, as it is the date on which his right to sue first is deemed to have been accrued.
31. The plaintiff has asserted that by government resolutions in 1980 and 1984 he has acquired the title over the properties. Therefore, as a prudent man, he ought to have initiated necessary steps to protect his interest. Having failed to do so and created a fictional date for cause of action, the plaintiff is liable to be non-suited on the ground of limitation.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR
32. As noted in the preceding paragraphs, the court auction was held in 1938 and sale deed was registered in the year 1952 in favour of the Defendant No.1 in respect of the suit properties, whereas, the suit was filed only in the year 2008, though the Respondent No.1 / Plaintiff and his predecessors were aware of the existence of the said registered sale deed of the suit properties. In fact, there is no averment in the plaint to the effect that the predecessors were not aware of the transactions. The limitation period for setting aside the sale deed would start running from the date of registration of the same and as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, after three years of the registration, the Plaintiff is barred from seeking cancellation of the said registered sale deed or the decree that was passed before 50 years and the consequential judgements. We have already referred to Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The plaintiff, in our view, has miserably failed to ascertain the existence of the fact by being diligent.
33. The question as to when a period of limitation would commence in respect of a registered document is no longer res integra. In this regard, this Court in Dilboo v. Dhanraji25, held as follows:
"20...... 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 the period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge"
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR (2007) 15 SCC 174 Janardham Prasad Vs. Ramdas:
12. The Court, in applying the period of limitation, would first inquire as to whether any time was fixed for performance of agreement of sale. If it is so fixed, the suit must be filed within the period of three years, failing which the same would be barred by limitation. Here, however, no time for performance was fixed. It was for the Courts to find out the date on which the plaintiff had notice that the performance was refused and on arriving at a finding in that behalf, to see whether the suit was filed within three years thereafter.
13. xxxx
14. The 1st Defendant was a friend of the 2nd Defendant. Admittedly, the usual stipulations were knowingly not made in the agreement of sale dated 11.4.1983. The 1st Defendant may or may not be aware about the agreement entered by and between the respondent herein. But he cannot raise a plea of absence of notice of the deed of sale dated 4.9.1985, which was a registered document.
Possession of the suit land by the appellant also stands admitted. Registration of a document as well as possession would constitute notice, as is evident from Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is in the following terms :
"...."a person is said to have notice" of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it.
Explanation I. Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 or, where the property is not all situated in one sub-district, or where the registered instrument has been registered under sub- section (2) of Section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), from the earliest date on which any memorandum of such registered instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property which is being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or interest is being acquired, is situated:
Provided that (1) the instrument has been registered and its registration completed in the manner prescribed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), and the rules made thereunder, (2) the instrument or memorandum has been duly entered or filed, as the case may be, in books kept under Section 51 of that Act, and (3) the particulars regarding the transaction to which the instrument relates have been correctly entered in the indexes kept under section 55 of that Act.
Explanation II. Any person acquiring any immovable property or any share or interest in any such property shall be deemed to have notice of the title, if any, of any person who is for the time being in actual possession thereof.
Explanation III. A person shall be deemed to have had notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice thereof whilst acting on his behalf in the course of business to which that fact is material :
Provided that, if the agent fraudulently conceals the fact, the principal shall not be charged
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR with notice thereof as against any person who was a party to or otherwise cognizant of the fraud."
Admittedly, father-in-law and wife of the Respondent No.1 had been looking after his affairs. They were, therefore, acting as his agents. They would be deemed to have notice of the registration of the document as also the possession of the appellant herein. If they had the requisite notice, in our opinion, the Respondent No.1., having regard thereto, should have filed a suit for specific performance of contract within the prescribed period. In fact they should have done so expeditiously having regard to the discretionary nature of relief he may obtain in the suit. They did not do so. They waited for more than two years from the date of execution of deed of sale. Even if the suit was not barred by limitation on that account, it was a fit case, where the Court should have refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
16. xxx
17. xxx
18. Furthermore, the appellant is in possession of the said land. He had dug a well. He had made improvement on the suit land. Digging of well as also making improvements was within the notice of the respondent. The witnesses examined on his behalf had categorically admitted the same.
In that view of the matter too, in our opinion, it was a fit case where the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act should not have been exercised and, instead, monetary compensation could be granted.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR (1977) 4 SCC 467 T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal & Another:
We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now, pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his power under Or. VII r. 1 1 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi "It is dangerous to be too good."
(2020) 7 SCC 366 Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyaniji Bhanusali (Gajra) by LRs & Others:
23. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the plaint and documents filed therewith, as also the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR 23.1 We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under:
"11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed in undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9 Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevent by any cause of exceptional nature for correction the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-
paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."
(emphasis supplied) 23.2. The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.
23.3. 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.
23.4. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi1 this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words :
"12. ...The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action."
23.5 The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.
23.6. Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint2, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR 23.7. Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under :
"14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies - (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
(emphasis supplied) 23.8. Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR 23.9. In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out.
23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration.
23.11. 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 relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V.Sea Success I & Anr.,4 which reads as :
"139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed."
23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co.5 the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR 23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
23.14. The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra.7 The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain case.
23.15. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint "shall" be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause
(a) to (e) are made out. If the Court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the Court has no option, but to reject the plaint.
24. "Cause of action" means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit.
24.1. In Swamy Atmanand Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam this Court held:
"24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR the defendant since in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded"
24.2.In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr.9 this Court held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words : -
"5. ...The learned Munsiff must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing ..." (emphasis supplied) 24.3. Subsequently, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,10 this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint.
24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal11 held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR (2020) 16 SCC 601 Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh by LRs
7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the facts of the case in a hand and the averments in the plaint, we are of the opinion that both the courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the gift deed was executed by the original plaintiff himself along with his brother. The deed of gift was a registered gift deed. The execution of the gift deed is not disputed by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift and therefore the same is not binding on him.
However, it is required to be noted that for approximately 22 years, neither the plaintiff nor his brother (who died on 15-12-2002) claimed at any point of time that the gift deed was showy deed of gift. One of the executants of the gift deed, brother of the plaintiff during his lifetime never claimed that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift. It was the appellant herein-original defendant who filed the suit in the year 2001 for partition and the said suit was filed against his brothers to which the plaintiff was joined as Defendant 10. It appears that the summon of the suit filed by the defendant being TS (Partition) Suit No. 203 of 2001 was served upon Defendant 10-plaintiff herein in the year 2001 itself. Despite the same, he instituted the present suit in the year 2003. d Even from the averments in the plaint, it appears that during these 22 years Le. the period from 1981 till 2001/2003, the suit property was mortgaged by the appellant herein- original defendant and the mortgage deed was executed by the defendant. Therefore, considering the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, is barred by law of limitation. Therefore, considering the decisions of this Court in T. Arivandandam and others, as stated above, and as the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the plaint is required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 СРС.
8. At this stage, it is required to be noted that, as such, the plaintiff has never prayed for any declaration to set aside the gift deed. We are of the opinion that such a prayer is not asked cleverly. If such a prayer would have been asked, in that case, the suit can be said to be clearly barred by limitation considering Article 59 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, only a declaration is sought to get out of the provisions of the Limitation Act, more particularly. Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The aforesaid aspect has also
14. Per contra, Shri.V.F.Kumbar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent Nos.1 to 5 supports the impugned order by contending that Sri.A.Rajanna referred to in the sale deed is not the father of the plaintiffs and common names are usual in the village side. According to him, plaintiffs have made out a specific case that they were not parties to the sale deed and therefore, the alienation made by the other members of the family would not bind the plaintiffs herein and such
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR is the relief that is claimed in the suit, which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the plaintiffs are claiming right under one A.Rajanna who is the member of the joint family.
16. Admittedly, the suit land was a 'thoti inam' land of the joint family. After Inam Abolition Act came into force, the Deputy Commissioner was entitled to re-convey the property based on the application given by one of the members of the joint family and was permitted to re-
convey portion of the land to such applicant.
17. Common prepositus applied for re-grant of land the land and grant has been made. After the re-grant, it
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR is settled principles of law, that the benefit of grant would enure to the all members of the joint family.
18. In view of the amendment to Section 6 of the Indian Succession Act, when the common prepositus dies, plaintiffs do get a share in the joint family properties following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA Vs. RAKESH SHARMA1.
19. All that the plaint relief as referred to supra is that the alienation is not in challenge; but the prayer is that the alienation would not bind the shares of the plaintiffs.
18. Whether at all, the plaintiffs share was also sold by head of the branch or not, cannot be decided at the threshold by holding a mini trial while considering the application filed by defendant No.10 especially when plaintiffs dispute one of the vendors by name 'Rajanna'.
1(2020) 9 SCC 1
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR
19. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the suit is perfectly maintainable and question of limitation cannot be gone into as the rights of the plaintiffs are not affected by the alienation, if they have independent right to claim in respect of the suit property.
20. These are all the matters, which are to be adjudicated in the trial after framing necessary issues. In other words, the triable issues require full-fledged trial and to thrash out the respective contentions of the parties.
21. Therefore, rejection of the application is just and proper.
22. In so far as UMA DEVI & OTHERS Vs. ANAND KUMAR & OTHERS2 referrred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in view of VINEETA SHARMA, the said decision is of no avail for Defendant No.10.
2(2025) 5 SCC 198
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR
23. In SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST & OTHERS Vs. SHRIMANT CHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE & ANOTHER3 case, rejection of the plaint was on the question of bar of limitation.
24. In the case on hand, since there is no right of the parties that has been alienated prima-facie and the relief is that the alienation would not bind their rights, the question of limitation is mixed question of law and facts and therefore, it is of no use in advancing the contentions of the plaintiffs further.
25. Now coming to the question of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M.RAMASWAMY Vs. GOVINDAMMA & OTHERS4, the same can be distinguished on the facts and circumstances in the case on hand, in view of discussion supra.
3(2024) 15 SCC 675 4 R.F.A.No.2312 of 2023
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR
26. In so far as JANARDHAM PRASAD Vs. RAMDAS5 is concerned, again, the Hon'ble Court was considering the effect of Article 54 of the Limitation Act in the said case. In the case on hand, Article 54 has no application as rights of the plaintiffs are not affected by the alleged alienation.
27. In so far as T.ARIVANDANDAM Vs. T.V.SATYAPAL & ANOTHER6 case is concerned, it is a celebrated judgment on the issue. However, in T.ARIVANDANDAM case, number of litigations were filed one after the other by the unscrupulous litigants. Such facts are not available in the case on hand as this is the only suit filed by the plaintiffs and therefore, same has no application to the facts of this case.
28. In DAHIBEN Vs. ARVINDBHAI KALYANIJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) BY LRs & OTHERS7 case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the question of 5 (2007) 15 SCC 174 6 (1977) 4 SCC 467 7 (2020) 7 SCC 366
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR mandatory nature of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and exercise of power there-under.
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, cause of action and limitation is a mixed question of law and facts in the case on hand as it amounts to bundle of facts, which has to be established in the full-fledged trial and therefore, DAHIBEN case has no application to the facts of the case.
30. In so far as RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH Vs. RAM PRASANNA SINGH BY LRs8 case is concerned, again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that the suit is to be rejected at the threshold if by mathematical precision, if the suit can be treated as "barred by limitation".
31. In the case on hand, since mixed question of law and facts are available, RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH case has also no application to the facts of the case. Therefore, none of the decisions relied on by the 8 (2020) 16 SCC 601
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47709 CRP No. 143 of 2023 HC-KAR counsel for the petitioner would improve the case of the petitioner to any extent in allowing the revision petition.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) Revision petition is dismissed.
ii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and parties are at liberty to canvass their respective contentions in the trial, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15