Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rathnamma vs Sri. K Ravi on 19 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47650
MSA No. 222 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2025 (RO)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RATHNAMMA,
W/O. LATE BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.128,
6TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE,
BRUNDAVAN EXTENSION,
MYSURU - 570 020.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRACHUD A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K RAVI
S/O. LATE M.B. KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
2. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA,
Digitally signed W/O. LATE M.B. KUMAR,
by PRASHANTH
NV AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
Location: High
Court of SL.NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING
Karnataka
AT NO.409/1, RAMAMANDIRA ROAD,
MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU MAIN
ROAD, BESIDE SHAKTHI GANAPATHI
STORES, MYSURU- 561 211.
3. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER
STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ACT, 1951
HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCHES AT NO.13
AND 12/1, 8TH CROSS, KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL
ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU-570009.
PRESENTLY OFFICE LOCATED AT NO.P-9/1,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47650
MSA No. 222 of 2025
HC-KAR
2ND FLOOR, SAHUKAR CHENNAIAH
ROAD, OPP. SRI. KRISHNADHAMA,
SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU-570009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.B. RUDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2 (ABSENT)
SRI. P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 43(1) (U) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.06.2025, PASSED
IN RA NO.167/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2022 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.VI IN OS.NO.1573/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.VI FILED UNDER
ORDER VII RULE 11(A) AND (D) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR
REJECTION OF PLAINT AND THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IS HEREBY
RESTORED TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS MSA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. The appellant being defendant No.2 in OS.No.1573/2019 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (hereinafter referred as to 'the Trial Court'), is impugning the judgment and decree dated -3- NC: 2025:KHC:47650 MSA No. 222 of 2025 HC-KAR 04.06.2025 passed in RA.No.167/2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru (hereinafter referred as to 'the First Appellate Court') allowing the appeal by setting aside the order passed on IA.VI dated 07.04.2022 by the Trial Court and thereby remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
4. Heard Sri. Chandrachud A, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. SB. Rudrappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Sri. PS. Malipati, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.
5. In view of these contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to allow the appeal?" -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47650 MSA No. 222 of 2025 HC-KAR My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
6. Respondent No.1 - plaintiff has filed OS.No.1573/2019 seeking declaration of his title and for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 20.02.2006 executed by defendant No.1 herein in favour of defendant No.2. It is contended that defendant No.1 could not have executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the schedule property which is described as Poultry Farm situated in Sy.No.324/5 at Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk with the boundaries mentioned therein, measuring 10.50 guntas along with the shed measuring 100 X 25 feet and a bore well.
7. Defendant No.2 has appeared before the Trial Court and filed IA.No.VI seeking rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court allowed the said IA.No.VI filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 11 of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and accordingly, rejected the plaint. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred RA.No.167/2022. The First Appellate Court by passing the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:47650 MSA No. 222 of 2025 HC-KAR impugned judgment allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed on IA.VI by the Trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The said judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is impugned in the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of the Court that the schedule property was mortgaged by the father of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 - KSFC while obtaining a loan. Since he has not repaid the loan amount, the said property was brought for sale under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The materials placed before the Court disclose that the auction of the property was held on 11.11.2003, in the public auction. The appellant / defendant No.2 being the highest bidder purchased the property. The possession certificate was issued by KSFC in favour of the appellant on 05.01.2004 and the registered sale deed was executed on 20.02.2006.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn the attention of the Court to the document produced by him, which shows that the plaintiff had filed the suit in OS.No.107/2004 on 15.04.2004 against defendant No.2 seeking permanent -6- NC: 2025:KHC:47650 MSA No. 222 of 2025 HC-KAR injunction in respect of the very same property. The appellant being the defendant in the said suit filed a written statement pleading about the auction sale and purchase of the property in the public auction on 11.11.2003 and handing over of possession certificate on 05.01.2004 by KSFC. Considering such contention, the Trial Court held that the appellant herein was in possession of the property and accordingly, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 06.02.2012. The plaintiff herein has challenged the said judgment by preferring RA.No.35/2012. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment date 10.07.2014. It is pertinent to note that in the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in RA.No.35/2012, there is reference to the sale deed dated 20.02.2006 executed by KSFC in favour of the appellant.
10. The attention of the Court is also drawn to the documents produced by the appellant, which clearly go to show that the plaintiff had filed WP.No.8382/2012 seeking to quash the sale deed dated 20.02.2006. The appellant was the respondent in the said writ petition and he has filed his statement of objections. The said writ petition came to be -7- NC: 2025:KHC:47650 MSA No. 222 of 2025 HC-KAR dismissed for default twice i.e., on 06.06.2016 and again on 15.09.2017. However, twice the matter was restored and finally as per order dated 19.07.2019, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Even though the petitioner has sought for liberty to pursue the remedy in accordance with law, the said liberty was not granted.
11. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the aunt of the plaintiff had filed a suit in OS.No.148/2007 seeking partition and separate possession of the schedule property, wherein the appellant herein was arrayed as defendant No.18 and the KSFC as defendant No.17. It is noticed that, both these defendants have taken similar contentions putting forth the auction sale held, sale deed executed, etc,. Respondent No.1 herein was arrayed as defendant No.4 who also contested the suit. It is noticed that the Trial Court in the said suit framed additional issue Nos.3 and 4 to the effect as to whether defendant No.18 i.e., appellant herein is a bona-fide purchaser of the property or not and, whether item No.2 therein i.e., the schedule property in the present suit was offered as security for the loan. Both these -8- NC: 2025:KHC:47650 MSA No. 222 of 2025 HC-KAR additional issues were answered in the affirmative and the suit came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.02.2020.
12. Admittedly, the said judgment was never challenged by the plaintiff in the said suit or by defendant No.4 who is the plaintiff in the present suit. Accordingly, it has reached a finality.
13. Now it is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that inspite of all these proceedings, the suit OS.No.506/2019 was filed by the plaintiff which was re- numbered as OS.No.1573/2019 seeking declaration and cancellation of the registered sale deed.
14. The Trial Court considered all these facts and circumstances and passed the order by rejecting the plaint. The First Appellate Court in RA.No.167/2022 held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the facts of the case and therefore, allowed the appeal and matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
15. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with exclusion of time of proceedings bona-fide in Court without -9- NC: 2025:KHC:47650 MSA No. 222 of 2025 HC-KAR jurisdiction. Various proceedings referred to above including filing of the writ petition seeking cancellation of the sale deed cannot be said to be a bona-fide act on the part of the plaintiff, that too, when the writ petition which was filed in year 2012 was kept pending, getting it restored twice and got dismissed as withdrawn only on 19.07.2019. I could not find any bona- fides on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the said writ petition as no such relief is claimed in the writ petition could have been granted. It is also pertinent to note that, the plaintiff has filed the suit in OS.No.107/2004 for permanent injunction, where the appellant has filed the written statement and pleaded about the auction sale and the possession certificate issued in his favour.
16. Admittedly, the said suit was dismissed and even the appeal was also dismissed. Under such circumstances, Articles 58 or 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could be made applicable to the facts of the case. The plaintiff should have filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed at least within 3 years from the date of knowledge.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47650 MSA No. 222 of 2025 HC-KAR
17. The materials on record disclose that the sale of the schedule property in the auction sale was brought to the notice of the plaintiff atleast when the appellant as defendant has filed written statement in OS.No.107/2004. Inspite of that, he has not chosen to file any suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed or seeking declaration in that regard. Merely because, he has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the writ petition, which was not available to him, the time spent in prosecuting such writ petition cannot be a ground to exclude the time spent, which was apparently not maintainable. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the First Appellate Court had committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. The Trial Court has appreciated the materials on record in a proper perspective, had allowed the application and rejected the plaint. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in RA.No.167/2022 is liable to be set aside and the order passed by the Trial Court in OS.No.506/2019 and IA.No.VI is to be restored. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47650 MSA No. 222 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed with cost.
ii) The judgment and decree dated 04.06.2025 passed in RA.No.167/2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru is hereby set aside.
iii) The order dated 07.04.2022 passed on IA.VI in OS.No.1573/2019 (Old No.506/2019) by the learned XIII Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru is restored.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE PNV - CT:VS - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23