The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3743 CRP No. 724 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 724 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SANTHOSH M S/O SRI MACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEAR S R/AT NO. 12, SHIVA NILAYA 3RD MAIN, HOSAKEREHALLI BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU 560 085 2. SRI RAVISH KUMAR P S/O SRI PUTTAMARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEAR S R/AT NO. 3/140, BAGUR ROAD BEGAPPALI, HOSUR 635 126 (BY SRI. VAIDYA RAVI LAXMINARAYANA., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. SRI N HANUMANTA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANAREDDY @ KODATHI NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
Legal Reasoning
2. SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O HANUMANTHA REDDY Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3743 CRP No. 724 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE 3. SRI KODANDA KUMARA REDDY S/O HANUMANTHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDETNS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU 560 068 4. SMT. H SAVITHA D/O SRI N HANUMANTHA REDDY W/O PRAKASH REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT111/1, PRAKASH REDY BUILDING NEAR SGR DENTAL COLLEGE MUNNEKOLLAL, MARATHALLI POST BENGALURU 37 5. SRI H KAVITHA D/O SRI N HANUMANTHA REDDY W/O SRI VENKATESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RA/T NO. 689, 12TH CROSS 26TH MAIN, 1ST SECTOR HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU 560 036 6. SMT. MAMATHA D/O SRI N HANUMANTHA REDDY W/O SRI BABU REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO. 189, NEAR HONGASANDRA BUS STOP BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 68 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3743 CRP No. 724 of 2024 7. SRIJAYARAM REDDY S/O LATE SHAMANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT NO. 93/2, 29TH MAIN BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU 76 8. SRI NARENDRA BABU S/O LATE B H MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT 30, 3RD CROSS VICTORIA LAYOUT BENGALURU 560 047 9. SMT CHAMPAKA W/O SRI NARENDRA BABU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT 30, 3RD CROSS VICTORIA LAYOUT BENGALURU 560 047 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VARADARAJAN M S., & SRI. SANTHOSH., ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R6) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN OS NO.6645/2024 ON THE FILE OF XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY., DISMISSING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3743 CRP No. 724 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioners, who are the defendants No.4 and 5 in O.S.No.6645/2024 are before this Court aggrieved of the rejection of their application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of CPC. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit with the following prayers: (a) Declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property having all right, title, interest and possession over the same. (b) Declare that the agreement of sale dt.16.12.2006 entered in to between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 and 3 at the instant of defendant No.1 agreeing to sell and purchase the schedule property for a valuable consideration amount of Rs.2,35,12,500/- is barred by limitation is not acted upon as the defendants have not complied with the terms and conditions of the same; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3743 CRP No. 724 of 2024 (c) Declare that the registered agreement of sale dt.16.12.2006 which is registered before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru Central, Bengaluru South Taluk as Document No.BAS-1-24535, Book No.1 stored in CD No.BASD296 obtained by the defendants no.2 and 3 at the instance of defendant no.1 by way of playing fraud, misrepresentation and abusing the good faith of the plaintiffs by mentioning only a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as sale consideration amount and the entire amount is paid to them leaving the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/ is illegal, fraudulent one, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. (d) Declare that the GPA dt. 15.12.2007 is forged, created and fabricated one by forging the signatures of the plaintiffs and that the same is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. (e) Declare that the registered sale deed dt. 03.04.2023 which is registered before the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3743 CRP No. 724 of 2024 office of the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar(JP Nagar) Bengaluru as Document No.JPN-1- 04735 is sham and collusive one between the defendant No.2 to 5 and that same is also sham collusive illegal, mill and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. (f) Direct the office of the Sub-Registrar to cancel the registered agreement of sale dt. 16.12.2006 and also the registered sale deed dt.03.04.2024. (g) Restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful, lawful, physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property either by themselves or by their family members Attorney holders or any other person/s claiming any right under or through them by granting permanent injunction. (h) Restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of third parties either by themselves or by their family members, Attorney holders or any other person/s claiming any right - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3743 CRP No. 724 of 2024 under or through them by granting permanent injunction. (i) Direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit, (j) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 3. In the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11, it was contended that such a prayer cannot be made by the plaintiffs and such a suit cannot be entertained. It was contended that the agreements were admittedly entered in the year 2006 and Power of Attorneys were also executed by plaintiffs in the year 2009 enabling the defendants No.1 and 2 to deal with the property. The registered sale deed was executed on 03.04.2023 in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 and therefore the suit is barred by limitation. 4. The trial court has opined that it is a well settled position of law that a plaint can be rejected under - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3743 CRP No. 724 of 2024 Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, if conditions enumerated are not fulfilled. It is only the averments made in the plaint that are required to be looked into. It was noticed that the plaintiffs claiming to be the absolute owners of the suit schedule property have executed a registered agreement of sale dated 16.12.2006, but it is contended that the same was got executed fraudulently. It is their contention that in the registered agreement of sale the sale consideration is shown as Rs.1 Crore and in the unregistered agreement, the sale consideration is shown Rs.1,12,00,000/- per acre. The total extent of land is 2 acres 8 ½ guntas. Therefore, the total sale consideration should be Rs.2,35,12,500/-. It is contended that the alleged agreement of sale is not acted upon and it is barred by limitation. It was also contended that the plaintiffs have never executed any power of attorney in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2 and the Power of Attorney mentioned in the registered Sale Deed is a fraudulent document. It is contended that the execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 03.04.2023 was not - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3743 CRP No. 724 of 2024 within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have mentioned the day when they came to know of the registered Sale Deed and therefore they contended that cause of action arose for the plaintiff from that date. The trial court therefore came to a conclusion that the plaint averments clearly discloses the cause of action to file the suit and since the plaintiffs claim that the defendant have played fraud against the plaintiffs and have got the Sale Deed registered without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and since the plaintiffs came to know the sale deed registered without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and since the plaintiffs came to know of the registered sale deed subsequently, the cause of action for filing the suit arose on the said date and the suit is filed within the period of limitation. Even otherwise, it was held that the contentious issue regarding fraud, forgery etc., are required to be dealt with only after considering the evidence that would be brought on record. The application was accordingly dismissed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3743 CRP No. 724 of 2024 5. This court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Having regard to the opinion of the trial court, this Court finds that all the requirements for consideration of such an application under Order VII Rule 11 has been given by the trial court. Acceptable reasons are also furnished in the impugned order for rejection of the application. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL