The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21057 MSA No. 95 of 2022 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.95 OF 2022 (RO) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. ANJINAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS SHIGEHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 067. (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. LAKSHMAMMA D/O CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT SULAKUNTE COLONY VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 037. NALLAMMA (DEAD) W/O LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS, LRS ON ALREADY ON RECORD 2. SHOBHA @ LAKSHMIDEVAMMA D/O CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. KANTH RAJU S/O ANJINAPPA C, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21057 MSA No. 95 of 2022 HC-KAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4. SHILPA D/O ANJINAPPA C, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 5. SUDHAKAR S/O ANJINAPPA C, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 6. KRISHNAMMA D/O CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 7. SAVITHRAMMA D/O CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 8. RATHNAMMA D/O CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 067.
Legal Reasoning
having considered the grounds urged in the application, comes to the conclusion that the said issue to be enquired by the Trial - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21057 MSA No. 95 of 2022 HC-KAR Court, as fraud vitiates the entire proceedings. When fraud is alleged, the Trial Court should have permitted the plaintiff to lead evidence and also further observed that land was a tenanted land and her father was a tenant and he had applied for granting occupancy rights. When the application was pending, her father died. In other words, the property is a self- acquired property of her father, by intestate succession, it has fallen in the hands of successors and also while discussing in respect of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the First Appellate Court also observed that Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act is very clear that plaintiff can question the validity of the very release deed which is stated to be executed under a false promise. 6. Having taken note of these reasons and when disputed facts are involved, matter requires adjudication and mere reliance on the document of relinquishment deed and coming to the conclusion by the Trial Court that there is no cause of action, the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous, unless the matter is adjudicated with regard to false promise and obtaining a document. When such allegations are - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21057 MSA No. 95 of 2022 HC-KAR made, the Trial Court comes to an erroneous conclusion that there is no cause of action. When such finding was reversed by the First Appellate Court and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court to decide the matter on merits to consider the matter with regard to the disputed facts to be considered in a original suit, I do not find any error committed by the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that matter requires trial and disputed facts has to be ascertained only after conducting trial. Hence, I do not find ground to set aside the order of the First Appellate Court and reasons are given while setting aside the order of the Trial Court and the Trial Court committed an error in coming to such a conclusion that there is no cause of action when it is specifically pleaded regarding cause of action, that too in respect of the relinquishment deed executed which was taken by false promise and whether the document was obtained under a false promise is a matter of trial. Therefore, I do not find any ground to consider the matter. Accordingly, the miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed. The observations made while disposing of this - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21057 MSA No. 95 of 2022 HC-KAR appeal shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51
Arguments
9. SRINIVAS S/O CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 10. VASANTH KUMAR S/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 11. MUKUNDA S/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 12. SHAILA D/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21057 MSA No. 95 of 2022 HC-KAR RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 7 AND 9 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT SHIGEHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHARALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 067. 13. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 14. POORNIMA C D/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 15. RAKESH C S/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 16. SUSHMA C S/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.13 TO 16 ARE RESIDING AT KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU – 78. 17. GEETHANJALLI DEVELOPERS PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SATHISH MEESALA S/O SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OFFICE AT 179, 15TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS, J P NAGAR, 5TH PHASE, BENGALURU-78. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2022, NOTICE TO R2 TO R17 ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21057 MSA No. 95 of 2022 HC-KAR THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.08.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.186/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1248/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (R) DISTRICT, BENGLAURU, ALLOWING THE IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (a) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The challenge is made to the order passed by the First Appellate Court remanding the matter by setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC. The appellant herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and 11(d) CPC contending that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and suit is liable to be rejected. 3. The Trial Court having considered the grounds urged in the application, comes to the conclusion that there is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21057 MSA No. 95 of 2022 HC-KAR no cause of action and plaint is liable to be rejected. The Trial Court also made an observation that nowhere in the pleading, the plaintiff has stated as to how the release deed is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. Nowhere, the plaintiff pleaded that she was taken to Sub-Registrar office forcibly and out of coercion and threat, they got obtained the signature of the plaintiff on the release deed. Having considered these reasons, the Trial Court allowed the application. 4. The same has been challenged before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the application as well as the statement of objections, reassessed the material on record and taken note of the fact that specific averments are made in the plaint that property belongs to their father, they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property and also contend that defendant No.2 got converted the land out of total extent of 2 acres 39 guntas for non-agricultural residential purpose as per order dated 25.04.2012. In the meantime, the defendant No.2 also executed a joint development agreement in favour of defendant No.18 along with defendant Nos.3 to 6. It is also the specific averment in the plaint that on the very same day, a release - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21057 MSA No. 95 of 2022 HC-KAR deed got registered by defendant Nos.7 to 17 and plaintiff, wherein defendant No.2 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the plaintiff and other defendants. It is further agreed to pay balance amount within three months with two Villas and there is a breach of this contract. Looking into these pleadings, the Trial Court has formed an opinion that plaintiff should have filed a suit for specific performance of the contract and not a suit for partition, because there is no brevity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.18. The certified copy of the release deed is also on record which is executed by the plaintiff. 5. Having taken note of the relinquishment deed and also averments made in the plaint, specific contention was taken that only made payment of Rs.9,00,000/- and also the fact that joint development agreement came into existence on the very same day is not in dispute and when the promise was made to make the payment of Rs.15,00,000/- and giving two Villas and she has signed the documents and when such averment is made in the plaint, the First Appellate Court also