Karnataka High Court
Sri Lagumaiah vs Sri Raghava Reddy on 21 August, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32617
RSA No. 1057 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1057 OF 2020 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. LAGUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
SON OF SRI MUNIYAPPA AND ANJINAMMA
2. SRI. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
SON OF SRI MUNIYAPPA AND ANJINAMMA
3. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
SON OF SRI MUNIYAPPA AND ANJINAMMA
4. SRI KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
Digitally
signed by SON OF LATE HANUMAPPA
MALATESH
KC
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE
Location:
HIGH RESIDING AT NAVARATHNA
COURT OF AGRAHARA VILLAGE, SADAHALLI POST
KARNATAKA JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 562 157.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32617
RSA No. 1057 of 2020
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI RAGHAVA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATA SUBBA REDDY
RESIDING AT NO.HIG-536
12TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
R M V 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
2. SMT. AKKAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
D/O LATE HANUMAPPA
3. SMT. SAKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
D/O LATE HANUMAPPA
RESIDING AT ARASANAHALLI
PEDDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110.
4. SMT. ANANDAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA
5. SMT. LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
W/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA
6. SRI. AMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
W/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:32617
RSA No. 1057 of 2020
HC-KAR
7. SRI NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA
8. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA
9. SMT. SAKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
W/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA
THE RESPONDENT NO.2, 4 TO 9
ARE RESIDING AT NAVARATHNA
AGRAHARA VILLAGE, SADAHALLI POST
JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU
NORTH TALUK - 562 157.
10. SRI. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
11. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
12. SMT. GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O LATE RAMANJINAPPA
13. SMT. SHASHIKALA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
D/O LATE RAMANJINAPPA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:32617
RSA No. 1057 of 2020
HC-KAR
14. SRI SHANTHKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O LATE RAMANJINAPPA
15. SMT. RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
16. SMT. ANJINAMMA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
17. SMT. GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
18. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
W/O LATE GOPALA
19. SMT. SWAPNA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O LATE GOPALA
20. SRI SANJAY
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O LATE GOPALA
21. SRI MUNIKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA.
22. SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:32617
RSA No. 1057 of 2020
HC-KAR
THE RESPONDENTS 10 TO 22
RESIDING AT R/AT DYVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 577 221.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. VIJAYASHEKAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 05.10.2020, NOTICE TO R2 TO R22 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 READ
WITH SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 24.06.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.15028/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DEVANAHALLI
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER
DATED 03.07.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.17 IN OS.NO.631/2008
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DEVANAHALLI ALLOWING THE IA NO.17 FILED UNDER ORDER
VII RULE 11(a) TO (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION
OF PLAINT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:32617
RSA No. 1057 of 2020
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.C.Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents.
2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal challenging the rejection of the plaint by allowing the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) read with Section 151 of CPC vide I.A.No.17 in O.S.No.631/2008 which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.15028/2019.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:
3.1. Plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.631/2008 with a prayer declaring that plaintiffs are the absolute owners and title holders of the suit property and declaring that sale deed dated 25.03.1992 executed by the husband of plaintiff No.1 registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Yelahanka in favour of Venkataramappa is not binding on the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR plaintiffs. Sale deed dated 25.03.1992 executed by husband of plaintiff No.1 in favour of Venkataramappa and Venkataramappa in turn executing the sale deed in favour of Raghava Reddy on 29.07.2004 is not binding on the plaintiffs, directing the defendant to hand over the physical possession of the suit property.
3.2. Subject matter of the suit property is described hereunder and hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property:
All the piece and parcel of agricultural land presently bearing Sy.No.3/248 (old No.3) situated at Navarathna Agrahara, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in all measuring 1 acre out of and bounded on the:
East by - Pillamma's land West by - Agrahara Sidahalli Road North by - Muniyappa's land South by - K. Raghavareddy's land 3.3. According to the plaint averments, suit land was tenanted land and after Land Reforms Act came into force, application was filed under Form No.7 and on due enquiry, -8- NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR occupancy rights were granted in favour of Hanumappa (husband of plaintiff No.1 and in the name of plaintiff No.1) by order dated 25.09.1982.
3.4. It is further contended that thereafter, plaintiff No.1 and her husband were in joint possession over the suit property.
3.5. It is also contended that on 27.03.1992, husband of plaintiff No.1 alienated one acre of the land by way of sale without the knowledge of the plaintiffs by violating the order of the Tribunal to Venkataramappa who in turn sold the property to defendant on 29.07.2004.
Therefore, right, title and interest in respect of suit property insofar as share of plaintiff No.1 has not been parted away. Under those sale deeds and sought for granting relief of declaration.
4. Defendants entered appearance pursuant to the suit summons and filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments.
-9-NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR
5. It is also contended that suit is barred by limitation and also for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. When the suit was being contested, an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) read with Section 151 of CPC came to be filed on 04.06.2018 on behalf of the defendant.
6. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by contending that application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (d) of CPC is not maintainable as there is a clear averment made in the cause of action paragraph and also taking note of the fact that since order of the land Tribunal was a joint order which was granted in favour of husband of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.1.
7. Therefore, seeking for cancellation of the sale deed did not arise and what was sought for before the Trial Court is alienation made by husband of the plaintiff No.1 in favour of Venkataramappa which was subsequently purchased by defendant would not bind the rights of the plaintiffs.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR
8. Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail on the application filed by the defendant and by order dated 03.07.2019, allowed the application and rejected the plaint.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.15028/2019.
10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 24.06.2020, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and confirmed the rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.631/2008.
11. Validity of the order of the learned Trial Judge and the First Appellate Court is called in question in this second appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR GROUNDS Impugned order, judgment and decrees of the courts below under challenge are contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and also evidence available on record.
The courts below have failed to apply the law to the admitted facts and circumstances of the case and citations made available in this behalf were brushed aside without proper application of mind resulting in passing of erroneous order, judgment and decrees.
The courts below failed to see the settled principal of law while considering the application for rejection of plaint. It is well settled law that the averments made in the plaint alone consider the application for rejection of plaint and not the statement made in the written statement or in the application for rejection of plaint documentary evidence relied by the first respondent/defendant. The principle was well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a catena of Judgments. Thus the trial court failed consider the said well settled principles and the same has led to passing erroneous order, Judgment and decrees thereby committed serious
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR illegality and the same is causing severe hardship and injury.
The courts below failed to see that the appellants in the course of the plaint clearly pleaded the suit schedule property is joint family property and appellants are the joint owners of the suit schedule property therefore the said Late Sri Hanumappa had no exclusive right to sell the property in favor of one Sri Venkatramappa under sale deed dated 27.03.1992 by violating the grant rules and conditions. As such, the appellants have challenged the said sale deed in the suit, the trial court without observing these facts has come to such conclusions without any basis. Hence the trial court order or Judgment and decrees are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble court.
The courts below failed to consider the well settled principle while dealing with the application for rejection of plaint for the infirmities mentioned under Order 7 Rule 11 [a] to [d] of Civil Procedure code. Parties to the proceedings or adjudicating their rights in respect of the suit schedule property cannot be deprived of their rights on the stand of the first respondent/defendant. Rejection of plaint by referring the stand of first defendant as put forth in the written statement and by appreciating produced along with it is not proper.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR The courts below failed to see that the appellants. have filed the suit for declaration and possession, the appellants have clearly pleaded in the plaint averments the suit schedule property is joint family property of late Sri Hanumappa on the other the first respondent contended that the suit schedule property is absolute property of Sri Hanumappa and hence he succeeded and he has sold the property on his own rights. The issue is determinable only after recording evidence and giving opportunity of hearing to parties. Plaint cannot be rejected by exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Civil Procedure Code for non-disclosure of cause of action. The issue can be adjudicated in a full pledged trail, without conducting the trial on the contentious issues, rejection of plaint only on the application of the respondent is not acceptable in the eye of law. Therefore the order, judgment and decrees are liable to be set aside.
The trial court failed to see that it has framed the issues on the pleadings of the parties to the suit on 18.12.2010 and one of the plaintiff has examined himself in evidence also. The first respondent has filed application for rejection of plaint on 04.06.2018 when the issues were framed and after lapse of 8 years from framing of the issues.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR Therefore the trial court should have determined the issues by driving the parties in a full-fledged trial, instead of doing that trial court has rejected the plaint on the application of the first respondent. Hence, the trial court order and judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are liable to be set aside and the suit is required to be restored to file.
The appellants have definite right in the suit property, the right of the appellants becomes the joint family property in the hands of the appellants. Therefore, the appellants have all the rights and interest in the property. Therefore even as per the judgment and observation of the trial court the appellants have definite right in the suit schedule property. Therefore the trial court judgment is not sustainable and liable to be set-aside.
The trial court disbelieves the documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs to disclose the date of knowledge and denial of the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit property by the defendant and the same should constitute a cause of action for filing the suit and even otherwise the said allegations are al matter of trial and the courts below have interpreted the documents prematurely to disbelieve the case made out by the plaintiffs as though the suit has been decided after full fledged
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR trial. The approach of the courts below are not in accordance with law.
The courts below failed to appreciate that the situation covered under Order VII Rule 11[b] and [c] of the Code of Civil Procedure involves determination and adjudication of court fee payable and no adjudication has taken place in this behalf and hence the courts below has rejected the plaint by invoking Order VII Rule 11[b] and [c] of the Code of Civil Procedure also which talks of the application of mind on the part of the courts below.
The reasons assigned by the courts below for rejection of the plaint are not in accordance with law. The citations relied on by the appellants made available to the lower appellate court under a memo namely the judgments reported in [1] AIR 2019 Gujarat 167 [2] 2019(1) Kar L.R. 813(DB) [3] 2018(3) KCR SN 264(SC) [4] 2018 (6) SCC 422 were not properly appreciated.
Viewed from any angle, the order and decree dated 03.07.2019 passed in 0.S.No.631/2008 on the file of senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C at Devanahalli and the Judgment and Decree in RA No.15028/2019 on file of the honourable V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Devanahalli are contrary to The the law and facts
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR and circumstances of the case. same is to be set aside by this Hon'ble court by decreeing the above appeal.
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW
1. Whether the courts below erred in rejecting the plaint by invoking Order VII Rule 11 [b] and [c] without determining the court fee payable and granting time to pay court fee?
2. Whether the courts below erred in rejecting the plaint by invoking Order VII Rule 11 [b] and [c] without their being necessary averments in the supporting affidavit?
3. Whether the courts below were justified in traveling beyond the plaint to reject the plaint?
4. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint by exercising power under Order VII Rule 11
(a) and (d) of Civil Procedure Code for non- disclosure of cause of action when the issue required full fledged trial?
5. Whether the courts below erred in not appreciating the law laid down in [1] AIR 2019 Gujarat 167 [2] 2019(1) Kar L.R. 813(DB) [3] 2018(3) KCR SN 264 (SC) [4] 2018 (6) SCC 422 ?."
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR
12. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that question of limitation was mixed question of law and facts. Therefore, rejecting the plaint that too when the trial had commenced before the Trial Court is totally misconceived and rejection of the plaint by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
13. He would further contend that question of limitation is wrongly computed by the learned Trial Judge taking note of the fact that the sale deed executed by husband of plaintiff No.1 in favour of Venkataramappa being 25.03.1992 and Venkataramappa having sold the same to defendant on 29.07.2004 and suit being filed in the year 2008 as time barred is without any proper legal basis and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR
14. He would also contend that Article 59 of the Limitation Act would be made applicable in the matter of this nature and not Article 58 and the cause of action in the plaint is only after issuance of the legal notice and therefore, suit was in time and rejection of the plaint on the basis of the limitation is bad in law.
15. He would also contend that rejection of the plaint on the basis of non-payment of proper Court fee is highly illegal inasmuch as learned Trial Judge was required to hold an enquiry with regard to insufficiency of the Court fee by treating the issue as a preliminary issue and later on, determine the Court fee payable and grant sufficient time to make good the Court fee if in the opinion of the learned Trial Judge that there was any deficiency in payment of the Court fee and only non-payment of the Court fee in the time prescribed by the learned Trial Judge, the plaint would be rejected and not earlier.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR
16. Therefore, order of the learned Trial Judge rejecting the plaint for non-payment of sufficient Court fee has thus resulted in miscarriage of justice.
17. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Kumarakurubaran v.
P.Narayanan arising from SLP (C) No.2549/2021 in Civil Appeal No.5622/2025.
18. He drew the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.5, 11 and 12 which reads as under:
"5. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the respondents/defendants filed an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 151 of 2015 in O.S. No. 310 of 2014 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, on the ground that the suit was undervalued and was barred by limitation.
11. It is well-settled that Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, governs suits seeking cancellation of an instrument and prescribes a period of limitation of three years from the date when the plaintiff first had knowledge of the facts entitling him to such relief. The emphasis under Article 59 is not on the date of the transaction per se, but on the accrual of the cause of action, which, in cases involving allegations of fraud or unauthorized execution of documents, hinges upon the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR date on which the plaintiff acquired knowledge of such facts.
12. In the present case, the appellant has specifically averred in the plaint that upon becoming aware of registration of documents allegedly carried out among the defendants in relation to the suit property, he immediately approached the Additional Commissioner of Police, Chennai and lodged a land grabbing complaint on 09.12.2011 against the family of Defendant No. 1. Subsequently, he applied for patta in his favour on 24.02.2012, and raised objections on 05.03.2012 to Defendant No. 4 stating that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff and that no registration concerning the same should be carried out. He has also submitted an objection petition to Defendant No. 5 requesting that no planning permit be granted to anybody except the appellant in respect of the suit property. Thereafter, the appellant instituted the suit on 03.12.2014 seeking a declaration and consequential reliefs. On the other hand, the respondents/defendants stated in their application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC that the appellant had knowledge of the execution of the sale deed by his father in favour of Defendant No. 1 at the earliest point of time and hence, the suit instituted by the appellant was barred by limitation. While the trial Court rejected the said application holding that the issue of limitation involved a mixed question of law and fact, the High Court in revision, took a contrary view and allowed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint solely on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.
12.1. However, we are of the considered view that the issue as to whether the appellant had prior notice or reason to be aware of the transaction at an earlier point of time, or whether the plea regarding the date of
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR knowledge is credible, are matters that necessarily require appreciation of evidence. At this preliminary stage, 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.
12.2. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the following decisions of this Court, which have consistently held that when the question of limitation involves disputed facts or hinges on the date of knowledge, such issues cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC:
(i) Daliben Valjibhai v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai7 "10. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendants made an application for correcting the revenue records only in the year 2017 and on the said application the Deputy Collector issued notice to the plaintiffs in March 2017 and that was the time when the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the sale deed. It is under these circumstances that the suit was instituted in the year 2017. While the High Court came to the correct conclusion that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of the knowledge, it proceeded to return a finding that in cases where the document is registered, the knowledge must be presumed from the date of registration.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR
11.
12. Further, in Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar where again a suit for cancellation of sale deed was opposed through an application under Order 7 Rule 11, on ground of limitation, this Court specifically held that limitation in all such cases will arise from date of knowledge. The relevant portion is as follows:
"15. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane. It is common ground that the registered sale deed is dated 18-10-1996. The limitation to challenge the registered sale deed ordinarily would start running from the date on which the sale deed was registered. However, the specific case of the appellant-plaintiffs is that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding execution of such sale deed by their brothers, original Defendants 1 and 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai Prabhudas Thakkar or Defendants 3 to 6. They acquired that knowledge on 26-12-2012 and immediately took steps to obtain a certified copy of the registered sale deed and on receipt thereof they realised the fraud played on them by their brothers concerning the ancestral property and two days prior to the filing of the suit, had approached their brothers (original Defendants 1 and 2) calling upon them to stop interfering with their possession and to partition the property and provide exclusive possession of half (½) portion of the land so designated towards their share.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR However, when they realised that the original Defendants 1 and 2 would not pay any heed to their request, they had no other option but to approach the court of law and filed the subject suit within two days therefrom. According to the appellants, the suit has been filed within time after acquiring the knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed. In this context, the trial court opined that it was a triable issue and declined to accept the application filed by Respondent 1-Defendant 5 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). That view commends to us.
...
19. In the present case, we find that the appellant-plaintiffs have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about the fraudulent sale deed executed by original Defendants 1 and 2 by keeping them in the dark about such execution and within two days from the refusal by the original Defendants 1 and 2 to refrain from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of use and possession of the ancestral property of the appellants. We affirm the view taken by the trial court that the issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC."
(emphasis supplied)
13. In view of the above, there was no justification for the High Court in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, on issues that were not evident from the plaint averments itself. The High Court was also not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR date of registration itself. In this view of the matter the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable."
(ii) Salim D. Agboatwala v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar8 "11. As observed by this Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy [(2015) 8 SCC 331 : (2015) 4 SCC (Civ) 100], the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation. When a plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11.
12. Again as pointed out by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar [(2018) 6 SCC 422 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 524], the plea regarding the date on which the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the essential facts, is crucial for deciding the question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. It becomes a triable issue and hence the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold.
13...
14. But a defendant in a suit cannot pick up a few sentences here and there from the plaint and contend that the plaintiffs had constructive notice of the proceedings and that therefore limitation started running from the date of constructive notice. In fact, the plea of constructive notice is raised by the respondents, after asserting
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR positively that the plaintiffs had real knowledge as well as actual notice of the proceedings. In any case, the plea of constructive notice appears to be a subsequent invention."
(iii) Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India9 "6. The central question is : whether the plaint as filed by the appellant could have been rejected by invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC?
7. Indeed, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC gives ample power to the court to reject the plaint, if from the averments in the plaint, it is evident that the suit is barred by any law including the law of limitation. This position is no more res integra. We may usefully refer to the decision of this Court in Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta [(2007) 10 SCC 59]. In paras 13 to 20, the Court observed as follows : (SCC pp. 65-66) "13. As per Order 7 Rule 11, the plaint is liable to be rejected in the following cases:
'(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is 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;
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9;'
14. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, [(2003) 1 SCC 557] it was held with reference to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code that:
'9. ... the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power ... at any stage of the suit -- before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage....' (SCC p. 560, para 9).
15. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
16. "The trial court 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, it should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR the illusion of a cause of action, [it has to be nipped] in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC." (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467], SCC p. 468.)
17. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered, and the whole plaint has to be read. As was observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3 SCC 487], only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected.
18. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [(1998) 7 SCC 184] it was observed that the averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 was applicable.
19. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr. [(2004) 3 SCC 137] this Court held thus : (SCC pp. 146-47, para 15) '15. There cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.'
20. For our purpose, clause (d) is relevant. It makes it clear that if the plaint does not contain necessary averments relating to limitation, the same is liable to be rejected. For the said purpose, it is the duty of the person who files such an application to satisfy the court that the plaint does not disclose how the same is in time. In order to answer the said question, it is incumbent on the part of the court to verify the entire plaint. Order 7 Rule 12 mandates where a plaint is rejected, the court has to record the order to that effect with the reasons for such order."
8. On the same lines, this Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust [(2012) 8 SCC 706 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 612], observed as follows : (SCC pp. 713-15, paras 10-
12) "10. ... It is clear from the above that where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected within the time allowed by the court, insufficiently stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by the court, barred by any law, failed to enclose the required copies and the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9, the court has no other option except to reject the same. A reading of the above provision also makes it clear that power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised at any stage of the suit either before registering the plaint or after the issuance of summons to the defendants or at any time before the conclusion of the trial.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR
11. This position was explained by this Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1 SCC 557], in which, while considering Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, it was held as under : (SCC p. 560, para 9) '9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit -- before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.' It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the court to scrutinise the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [(1998) 7 SCC 184] and Mayar (H.K.)
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express [(2006) 3 SCC 100].
12. It is also useful to refer the judgment in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467], wherein while considering the very same provision i.e. Order 7 Rule 11 and the duty of the trial court in considering such application, this Court has reminded the trial Judges with the following observation : (SCC p. 470, para 5) '5. ... 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, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC 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 10 CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Chapter XI) and must be triggered against them.' It is clear that if the allegations are vexatious and meritless and not disclosing a clear right or material(s) to sue, it is the duty of the trial Judge to exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action as observed by Krishna Iyer, J. in the abovereferred decision [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467], it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the parties under Order 10 of the Code."
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR
14. All these events have been reiterated in Para 28 of the plaint, dealing with the cause of action for filing of the suit. Indeed, the said para opens with the expression "the cause of action to file the suit accrued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the illegal recoveries were noticed and letter dated 21-7- 2000 was sent to the defendants to clarify as to how the interest was being calculated". This averment cannot be read in isolation.
....
22. It is well-established position that the cause of action for filing a suit would consist of bundle of facts. Further, the factum of the suit being barred by limitation, ordinarily, would be a mixed question of fact and law. Even for that reason, invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is ruled out. In the present case, the assertion in the plaint is that the appellant verily believed that its claim was being processed by the regional office and the regional office would be taking appropriate decision at the earliest. That belief was shaken after receipt of letter from the Senior Manager of the Bank, dated 8-5-2002 followed by another letter dated 19-9-2002 to the effect that the action taken by the Bank was in accordance with the rules and the appellant need not correspond with the Bank in that regard any further. This firm response from the respondent Bank could trigger the right of the appellant to sue the respondent Bank. Moreover, the fact that the appellant had eventually sent a legal notice on 28-11-2003 and again on 7-1-2005 and then filed the suit on 23-2-2005, is also invoked as giving rise to cause of action. Whether this plea taken by the appellant is genuine and legitimate, would be a mixed question of fact and law, depending on the response of the respondents."
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR
19. He would also place reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited v. Mcdowell Holdings Limited dated 28.05.2019 passed in RFA No.610/2019 and in the said judgment, he invited the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.7 to 11, which are culled out hereunder for ready reference:
"7. The argument of learned senior counsel for respondent touches the merits of the application for amendment. His argument cannot be considered, because it is for the trial court to decide the said application, and in the absence of findings of the trial court on the application for amendment, it is improper to express any opinion. Therefore the question to be examined tapers to the point whether the trial court is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code without deciding application for amendment of plaint. In this context I find it useful to refer to some of the decided cases cited by learned senior counsel for appellant.
8. The High Court of Calcutta, in the case of AHMAD HOSSEIN vs CHEMBELLI AND OTHER (AIR 1951 CAL 262) has held as below "6....... The object of Order 7, Rule 11 therefore is really to prevent the ordinary consequences of dismissal viz., to prevent the filing of another suit on the same cause of action that is to say prevent
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR another suit filed on the same cause of action from being barred. If such is the object, it cannot be defeated by allowing the plaint to be amended so as to remove the defect and prevent the operation of Order 7, Rule 11. The result of saying that when Order 7, Rule 11 applies the plaint cannot be amended would be to say that it was the intention of the Legislature that the parties would be compelled to have the suit dismissed and start afresh and made to throw away large costs incurred in the first suit. It strikes me as absurd to say that this was what the Legislature intended. In my view therefore Order 7, Rule 11 does not in the least affect or take away the Court's powers or duties as to amendment and all necessary amendments should be made even if Order 7, Rule 11 applies".
9. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has also taken the same view in the case of GAGANMAL RAMCHAND VS. THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION (AIR 1950 BOM. 345). It is held as below "3. .......I see no reason whatever why the power of the Court to allow amendment of pleadings should be in any way restricted or controlled by the provisions contained in O. 7, R. 11. It is perfectly true that it is incumbent upon the Court to reject a plaint that does not disclose a cause of action, but it does not allow a plaint to be amended so that it should disclose a cause of action. It is only when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action that the Court is called upon to exercise its power under O. 7, R. 11. But the Court may prevent the operation of O. 7, R. 11, and may save the plaint being
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR rejected by exercising its power under O. 7, R. 11, and allowing the plaint to be amended....."
10. The High Court of Chhatisgarh, following the above judgment of High Court of Bombay, also came to same conclusion in the case of MAHESH KUMAR AGGARWAL & OTHERS VS. DINESH KUMAR CHOUKSEY & OTHERS (2009 (4) CGLJ 229).
"14. We are in respectful agreement with the principle of law laid down by the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid judgment and we hold that the trial court was duty bound to decide the application for amendment (I.A.No.9) filed by the plaintiffs on 28.12.2008 before deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure subsequently preferred by the defendants for dismissal of the plaint".
11. I find absolute reason in the above analogy. If after rejection of plaint, Order 7 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code provides for filing of a new suit, why an amendment to plaint should not be permitted to save the suit from being rejected?"
20. Learned counsel for the respondents is absent.
21. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellants, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
22. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that rejection of the plaint by the learned Trial
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR Judge on the question of insufficient Court fee payable on the plaint is incorrect.
23. There is sufficient force in the argument put forth on behalf of the appellants that no enquiry is held as to insufficiency of the Court fee payable on the plaint.
Without holding such an enquiry and affording reasonable opportunity for the plaintiff to make good the deficit Court fee, rejection of the plaint is impermissible.
24. Next ground on which the Trial Court has rejected the plaint is on the question of limitation.
25. As a general rule, question of limitation is always considered at the end of the trial as in many cases, it is the mixed question of law and facts.
26. However, there is no bar for the Court to reject the plaint when there is apparently the suit is barred by limitation.
27. In this regard, cause of action paragraph in the plaint is culled out hereunder:
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR "The cause of action to file this suit arose on 12-01- 2008 and subsequent days as the Defendant refused to settle the matter in front of the elders."
28. Pertinently, the date of alienation of the suit property by the husband of plaintiff No.1 on 25.03.1992 is absent in the said cause of action paragraph. So also the subsequent alienation made by Venkataramappa in favour of defendant is not explained and even if the said date is taken into consideration being the date as 29.07.2004, suit ought to have been filed on or before 28.07.2007.
But the suit is filed before the Trial Court in the year 2008.
29. Cleverly to overcome the question of limitation, plaint has been drafted with prayer as under:
"WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree as follows:
1. Declare that the plaintiff are the absolute owners and title holders of the suit schedule property
2. Declaring that the sale deed dated 25-03-1992 bearing Reg.No.4767/1991-92 and sale deed dated 29.7-2004 bearing Reg.No.9972/2004-05 both are registered before the Sub-Registrar of Yelahanka Bangalore are not binding on the plaintiff.
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR
3. Directing the defendant to hand over the physical possession of the corpus of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs.
4. Granting such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit under the circumstances of the case with the costs in the ends of justice and equity."
30. It is pertinent to note that in the plaint averments itself, plaintiff No.1 has taken a contention that the alienation made by her husband is against the grant of occupancy rights by the Tribunal.
31. If it is so, what prevented plaintiff No.1 to challenge the alienation made by her husband in favour of Venkataramappa from 1982 is a question that remains unanswered. Admittedly, possession of the suit property is delivered to the defendant by Venkataramappa who had the benefit of taking the possession under registered sale deed dated 25.03.1992.
32. It is also significant to note that date of death of plaintiff No.1 is not mentioned in the plaint. When the husband of plaintiff No.1 did not challenge the alienation
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR made by him in favour of Venkataramappa by virtue of the sale deed dated 25.03.1992, the children of Hanumappa could not maintain the suit.
33. Assuming that plaintiff No.1 has got ½ share in the suit property by virtue of the order passed by the Land Tribunal on 25.09.1982, whereby suit property was granted in the name of husband of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.1 and if it is a joint order, what is the extent of the land for which the occupancy rights were granted is not forthcoming on record.
34. It is pertinent to note that sale made in favour of Venkataramappa by the husband of plaintiff No.1 is only to the extent of one acre. It is not the case of the plaintiff either that the entire property which was granted was alienated by husband of plaintiff No.1.
35. Defendant having denied the plaint averments and when the amended has taken place to the plaint after the death of plaintiff No.1 - Pillamma, legal
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR representatives should have taken note of these aspects of the matter and made necessary amendment to the plaint as well. No such effort has been made.
36. During the lifetime of the husband of plaintiff No.1 and in her lifetime, plaintiff No.1 did not choose to complaint to the land Tribunal or the Government about the alienation made by her husband.
37. It is also not the case of the plaintiffs either that husband of plaintiff No.1 had some bad vices and detrimental to the interest of his family members, he alienated the property in favour of Venkataramappa nor any averment is made in the plaint to show that Hanumappa and Pillamma were leaving separately and he had deserted his family members.
38. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, when the clear dates are available where the suit could be considered as barred by limitation, rejection of the plaint by the Trial Court on the ground of cause of action not
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR being there on account of limitation, rejection of the plaint is thus just and proper.
39. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, reappreciated the factual and legal aspects in the light of the grounds urged by the plaintiffs in their appeal in RA No.15028/2019 and bestowed his best attention to the relevant aspects of the matter and not only confirmed the order of the Trial Court but has also supplemented additional reasons.
40. The contentions of the appellants that belated application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (d) seeking rejection of the plaint is concerned, the First Appellate Court has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITC Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal reported in 1998 (2) SCC 70 and so also, Sopan Sukhdev Sable and Others v. Assistant Charitable Commissioner and Others reported in 2004 (3) SCC 137.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR
41. Therefore, the grounds urged by the appellants that rejection of the plaint by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court is bad in law cannot be countenanced in law in the peculiar and attendant facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
42. On adverting to the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Kumarakurubaran supra, as could be seen from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is an allegation of fraud in the said case. No such allegations are found in the present case.
43. Likewise, in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in RFA No.610/2015 referred to supra, facts are totally different and said decision was not pressed into service either before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court and is cited only before this Court.
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR
44. Facts in the said case admittedly are different from the facts that are found in the case on hand. More so, when the husband of plaintiff No.1 did not choose to challenge the alienation made by him during his lifetime and his date of death has not even mentioned in the plaint averments would expose the hollowness in the case of the plaintiffs.
45. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of P.Kumarakurubaran and Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited referred to supra, are not applicable to the case on hand.
46. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum do not merit for further consideration.
47. Accordingly, the following:
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32617 RSA No. 1057 of 2020 HC-KAR ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40/CT: BHK