SHRI. D.U. MALLIKARJUNA v. SMT. VINUTHA C.R.

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O SRI. MADAIAH RESIDING AT NO.4/204 VISHAL PALACE 1ST CROSS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB R.F.A. No.2637/2025 HC-KAR MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADV., FOR SRI/SMT. SHERVIL ADAPPA, ADV., FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.1225/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGALORE. HEARD THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 01.04.2025, PASSED IN O.S.1225/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BANGALORE RURAL AND DECREE THE SUIT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF 27.02.2026, COMING ON JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2025 passed in O.S.No.1225/2022 by the Court of VII Additional - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB R.F.A. No.2637/2025 HC-KAR Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short 'the Trial Court').

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1225/2022 seeking declaration that the gift deed dated 12.12.2016 is a fraudulent document, declaration that any transaction in regard to the suit schedule property is not binding on the plaintiffs and other reliefs. In the said suit, the defendant No.2 filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint was filed beyond the period of limitation. The Trial Court, on consideration of the plaint averments, submissions and the provisions of law, proceeded to allow the application and rejected the plaint on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB R.F.A. No.2637/2025 HC-KAR

4. Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application filed by the defendant No.2, without appreciating the material on record its proper perspective. It is submitted that the gift deed dated

12.12.2016 was executed by fraudulent means by the defendants. It is further submitted that the signature of the plaintiff on the gift deed dated 12.12.2016 was obtained through deception, while simultaneously obtaining signatures on a cancellation agreement. It is also submitted that the Trial Court has erroneously considered the period of limitation to begin

12.12.2016 i.e. the date of the execution of the gift deed, whereas the limitation ought to begin from the date the plaintiff was aware of the said gift deed i.e on 05.05.2022. It is contended that the plaintiff is a stranger to the family of the defendants, which creates suspicion with regard to the gift deed dated 12.12.2016 and the same is required - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB R.F.A. No.2637/2025 HC-KAR to be looked into by the Trial Court during the trial. It is further contended that the issue with regard to the limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and requires evidence. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, Sri.Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Shervil Adappa, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the law on the point and proceeded to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB R.F.A. No.2637/2025 HC-KAR

7. The point that arises for our consideration is: "Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for any interference?"

8. The material on record indicates that the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.1225/2022 seeking declaration that the gift deed dated 12.12.2006 is obtained by fraudulent means, declaration transactions undertaken by the defendants with respect to the suit schedule property is not binding on the plaintiff and also the relief of mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the defendants. In the said suit, the defendant No.2 filed an application seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court, on considering the plaint averments and the provisions of law, proceeded to allow the application and reject the plaint.

9. The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant-plaintiff is that the period of limitation - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB R.F.A. No.2637/2025 HC-KAR ought to start from the date of discovery of the fraud and not from the date of execution of the gift deed and it is a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial. The said contention was also raised before the Trial Court and was rightly rejected, as the gift deed is a registered document which was signed by the plaintiff. A mere assertion that he was unaware of the said gift deed cannot justify the delay in filing the suit. The Trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DILBOO V DHANRAJ AND OTHERS1, wherein it was held that whenever a document is registered, the date of registration would become the date of deemed knowledge.

10. It would also be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. (2) V. STATE OF HARYANA2, wherein it was held as under: