M Ramaiah vs T. Ramadas
2023 Latest Caselaw 9812 Kant

Karnataka High Court

M Ramaiah vs T. Ramadas on 8 December, 2023

                                           -1-
                                                   NC: 2023:KHC:44619
                                                  RSA No. 831 of 2023




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                         BEFORE

                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                   REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.831 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

             BETWEEN:

             1.    M.RAMAIAH
                   S/O LATE MUTHURAYAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

             2.    A N NAGARATHNAMMA
                   W/O M RAMAIAH
                   AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

             3.    V R SANTHOSH KUMAR
                   S/O M RAMAIAH
                   AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

Digitally          ALL ARE RESIDING AT
signed by          ATTURU VILLAGE
CHAITHRA A
                   YELAHANKA HOBLI
Location:          BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
HIGH               BENGALURU-560067
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                                                        ...APPELLANTS
             (BY SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA B HARAVIGOWDAR, ADVOCATE)

             AND:

             1.    T. RAMADAS
                   S/O C.THIPPAIAH
                   AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
                   R/O 7/4, NEHRU NAGARA
                              -2-
                                    NC: 2023:KHC:44619
                                   RSA No. 831 of 2023




     RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD
     BENGALURU-560020

2.   B SRINIVAS
     S/O BOREGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
     R/O NO.1,
     VENKATARAMANAPPA GARDEN
     YESHAVANTHAPURA
     BENGALURU-560022

3.   NARAYANA COWHAN
     S/O EERAPPA COWHAN
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
     R/O NO.258, 7TH MAIN
     RPC LAYOUT
     BENGALURU -560043

4.   SMT.JYOTHSNA SRINIVAS
     W/O GURUPRASAD
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
     C/O SMT SHAMALA SRINIVAS
     R/O NO.219
     ABBE COMPLEX
     3RD MAIN ROAD
     CHAMARAJAPET
     BENGALURU-560018

5.   SMT.SANDYA A RAO
     W/O A N ANANTHA RAO
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     R/O NO.21, 4TH CROSS
     CHAMARAJAPET
     BENGALURU-560018

6.   A N ANANTHA RAO
     S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA RAO
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
     R/O NO.21, 4TH CROSS
                            -3-
                                  NC: 2023:KHC:44619
                                 RSA No. 831 of 2023




     CHAMARAJAPET
     BENGALURU-560018

7.   T.RAMAKRISHNA
     S/O THIPPAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     R/O NO.V-58, 4TH CROSS
     PIPELINE MALLESHWARAM
     BENGALURU-560003

8.   K.N.MANJULA
     W/O K.RAGHUNATHA
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
     C/O MYSORE ROAD
     PRODUCTS LIMITED
     STAFF QUARTERS
     MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
     BENGALURU-560086

9.   R.P.MANJULA
     W/O KUMARA
     D/O R K PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
     R/AT NO.1703, BEML
     5TH STAGE
     RAJARAJESHWARI
     NAGARA
     BENGALURU-560096

10. SMT.ARUNA RAVINDRA
    W/O DR.K.R.RAVINDRA
    AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
    R/AT 7TH CROSS
    LAKSHMI ROAD
    SHANTHI NAGARA
    BENGALURU-560046

11. DR K R RAVINDRA
    S/O K RANGANATHACHAR
                              -4-
                                    NC: 2023:KHC:44619
                                   RSA No. 831 of 2023




    AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
    R/AT 7TH CROSS
    LAKSHMI ROAD
    SHANTHI NAGARA
    BENGALURU-560046

12. S.GOPALA RAO
    S/O B.SHANKARA RAO
    AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
    R/AT 782, 9TH B MAIN ROAD
    RPC LAYOUT
    VIJAYANAGARA, 2ND STAGE
    BENGALURU-560040

13. SMT R.TANUJA
    W/O M L RAGHUNATH
    AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
    R/O NO.366, 10TH CROSS
    MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
    BENGALURU-560 086

14. SMT.RAMAMANI
    C/O C R RAGHAVENDRA RAO
    AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
    R/O NO.21, 4TH CROSS
    CHAMARAJAPETE
    BENGALURU-560018

15. K.SUBRAMANYAM
    S/O K MUNIYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
    R/O C/O MYSORE FOOD
    PRODUCTS LTD.,
    STAFF QUARTERS
    MAHALAKSHMI PURAM
    BENGALURU-560086

16. INDRAJEETH C.SHIROLE
    S/O CHANDRSEN
                              -5-
                                         NC: 2023:KHC:44619
                                       RSA No. 831 of 2023




    B SHIROLE
    AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
    R/O DEEPALAKSHMI
    NO.12052, SHIROLE ROAD
    SHIVAJINAGAR
    PUNE
    MAHARASHTRA-411004

17. S.HARISH
    S/O M B SHIVANNA
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
    R/O NO.110
    3RD CROSS
    MUNESHWARA BLOCK
    MAHALAKSHMI PURAM
    BENGALURU-560086

18. SMT.SHAYALAJA A MAANAY
    W/O ASHOK R MAANAY
    AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
    R/O NO.2-A
    ALEXANDAR
    APARTMENTS, NO.36
    ANNEXANDAR STREET
    RICHMOND TOWN
    BENGALURU-560025

                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.S.SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI.M.B.SHANKARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
R.4, 5, 6, 10, 11 AND 14;
SRI.CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.9;
SRI.RAGHAVAN M, ADVOCATE FOR R.12;
SRI.RAMESH T.R, ADVOCATE FOR R.18;
R.8, 15, 16 AND 17 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
V/O DATED 07.09.2023
NOTICE TO R.1, 3, 7 AND 13 IS D/W V/O/D 01.12.2023
SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT IN R/O R.2)
                                      -6-
                                                      NC: 2023:KHC:44619
                                                   RSA No. 831 of 2023




        THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2023 PASSED IN RA
NO.111/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND ORDER DATED 05.09.2022 PASSED
IN OS NO.787/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL    JUDGE,     BENGALURU        RURAL      DISTRICT,     BENGALURU
ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED U/O.7 RULE 11(a)(b) AND (d)
R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

        THIS    APPEAL,     COMING         ON   FOR    PART      HEARD    IN
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                              JUDGMENT

The captioned second appeal is filed by the legal

heirs of unsuccessful plaintiff, who have questioned the

concurrent judgments rendered by both the Courts,

wherein the Trial Court while entertaining an application

filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a), (d)

and (c) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint is

entertained by the Trial Court and the plaint is rejected

and the order of rejection of plaint is confirmed by the

Appellate Court. These concurrent judgments are under

challenge by the legal heirs of the unsuccessful plaintiff.

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred

as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff has instituted a suit seeking

following relief;

"a) Declare that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property and further declare that, any transactions in between the defendants are null and void.

a(a). To declare that the registered sale deed dated 01.02.1996.

b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents, servants or G.P.A Holders in whatsoever manner called or anybody claiming through him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

c) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents, servants or G.P.A Holders in whatsoever manner called or

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

anybody claiming through him from alienating the suit schedule property.

d) Costs and such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

4. The plaintiff in the suit claimed that his

grandfather is the absolute owner and on account of family

necessity and financial constraints, he was compelled to

avail hand loan of Rs.10,000/- from defendant Nos.2

and 3. The plaintiff further pleaded that by way of

security, his grandfather has executed a General Power of

Attorney in favour of Narayanachawan, who is defendant

No.3. The plaintiff further specifically alleged that

defendant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for interest at the rate

of 2% per annum. The plaintiff alleges that defendant

Nos.2 and 3, taking undue advantage of the GPA,

executed nominal sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 by

misusing the GPA executed by his grandfather. The

plaintiff has further contended that he approached

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

defendants on several occasions and requested to

re-convey the property. Plaintiff at para No.8(a) of the

plaint has narrated the manner in which the suit property

has changed hands. The details of sale deeds executed by

defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 and in

favour of defendant No.4 and further alienations made by

purchasers is exhaustively narrated at para No.8(a) of the

plaint. On these set of pleadings, the present suit is filed.

5. Contesting defendants on receipt of summons

tendered appearance and filed written statement. The

defendants having taken cognizance of the pleadings in

the plaint have invoked provisions under Order VII Rule

11(a), (c) and (d). Referring to the admitted set of facts

in the plaint, the defendants have sought for rejection of

the plaint. The said application is contested by the

plaintiff.

6. The Trial Court having taken cognizance of the

pleadings as well as admitted documents furnished along

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

with plaint has come to conclusion that the present suit

filed in the year 2005 questioning the alienations made on

01.02.1996 is barred by limitation as per Article 59 of the

Limitation Act. The Trial Court referring to the cause of

action was also not inclined to accept the same and

recorded a categorical finding that cause of action

indicated in the plaint is found to be illusory and

imaginary. Consequently, plaint is rejected.

7. The order of rejection is assailed by the

plaintiff by filing an appeal in R.A.No.111/2022. The

Appellate Court, while re-visiting the pleadings averred in

the plaint, has concurred with the reasons and conclusions

recorded by the Trial Court while rejecting the plaint. The

Appellate Court was also of the view that if grandfather of

the plaintiff, who is the absolute owner, has executed a

GPA in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and based on the

said GPA, if agent has dealt with the properties and the

plaintiff's grandfather has not challenged GPA and

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

subsequent alienations, the plaintiff cannot question the

same by filing the present suit.

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

plaintiff, learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant

Nos.4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 and learned counsel appearing for

defendant No.9.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the

appellants in support of his contention has placed reliance

on the following judgments.

i) Shaukathussian Mohammed Patel vs. Khatunben Mohmmedbhai Polara reported in (2019) 10 SCC 226.

ii) Pawan Kumar vs. Babulal, since deceased through legal representatives and others reported in (2019) 4 SCC 367.

10. Before I advert to the reasons assigned by

the Trial Court and Appellate Court, I deem it fit to cull out

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

the relevant paragraphs of the plaint, which would clinch

the entire controversy between the parties.

"2. The Plaintiff submits that, the Plaintiff's grandfather is the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.39/1 of Attur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bengaluru, which is morefully described hereunder and hereinafter called as suit schedule property.

3. The Plaintiff submits that, the Plaintiff grandfather in need of money to the family necessities and also for to clear his financial problems, approached the Defendant Nos.2 & 3 and as a security for the loan of Rs.10,000/- was executed general power of attorney in favour of them. In this regard, both parties agreed to settle the matter and defendant Nos.2 & 3 agreed to receive the interest at 2% per month. The defendant Nos.2 & 3 back of Plaintiff and his family members made a nominal sale in favour of 1st defendant by utilizing the security documents like the general power of attorney in favour of them.

4. The plaintiff submits that the 1st defendant as per the forged sale deed in favour of him back of the plaintiff succeeded to got enter his name in revenue records. The plaintiff trust upon the defendant Nos.2 & 3 and after death of his grandfather

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

approached and return the loan and the said persons told that the suit schedule property was sold in favour of 1st defendant for nominal sale.

5. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff approached the defendants on several occasions and requested as well demanded to execute the re-conveyance deed in his favour. The 1st defendant, without any demand agreed to execute the deed and also requested some more time to execute the deed. The sale deeds as well as the consent of the other members of the family. In fact, the Plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He receiving the fruits from the suit schedule property.

6.xxxxx

7.xxxxx

8.xxxx

and defendant Nos.4 to 18 have no manner of exclusive right, title over the suit schedule property and with a malafide intention to grab the valuable schedule property, absolutely belongs to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 in collusion with defendant Nos.4 to 18 have made illegal sale transaction in respect of the schedule property. It is submitted that, the defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

dated 01-02-1996 in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6. Defendant No.1 has also executed another sale deed dated: 07-02-1996 in favour of defendant No.4 herein. The defendant No.7 has executed a registered sale deed dated: 26-02-1996 in favour of defendant No.4. The defendant No.1 has further executed a registered sale deed dated: 01-02-1996 in favour of defendant No.14, so also he has executed registered sale deed dated: 26-02-1996 in favour of defendant No.12 and also the defendant No.1 has executed two registered sale deeds dated: 13-02-1996 in favour of the defendant Nos.10 & 11. The defendant No.7 has executed registered sale deed dated: 13-02-1996 in favour of defendant No.18. Again the defendant No.7 has executed a registered sale deed dated:

07-02-1996 in favour of defendant No.14. The defendant No.1 has also executed another registered sale deed dated: 21-03-1996 in favour of defendant No.16. The defendant No.17 has executed registered sale deed dated 30-11-2007 in favour of defendant No.9 and defendant No.8 has executed a registered sale deed dated: 09-12-1999 in favour of defendant No.5 and thus, all the sale transaction entered into between defendants No.1 to 3 and 4 to 18 in respect of suit schedule property are collusive, created and same was not binding on the plaintiff."

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

11. On reading para No.2, it is admitted by the

plaintiff himself that his grandfather is the absolute owner

of the property. On examining para No.3, it is clearly

evident that plaintiff's grandfather has executed GPA,

to which, plaintiff's father has also signed as a witness.

The copy of GPA is furnished along with copy of the plaint

and this fact is indicated by the Trial Court. Para No.5 of

the plaint further clinches entire controversy between the

parties. The plaintiff, who has acknowledged the execution

of GPA by his grandfather and the sale deed executed by

agent, has requested defendants to re-convey the suit

property and the same is evident from para No.5. On

reading para No.8(a), the plaintiff has elaborately

discussed the manner in which the property is meddled by

the agent based on the GPA and how the suit property has

changed hands and now, subsequent purchasers have

acquired right pursuant to the proper sale transactions

under registered documents. It can be gathered from the

pleadings that defendant No.1 has alienated suit

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

properties under registered sale deed dated 01.02.1996 in

favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6.

12. It is further evident that defendant No.1 has

further alienated a portion in favour of defendant No.4

under registered sale deed dated 07.02.1996. Defendant

No.7, in turn, has conveyed the portion purchased by him

in favour of defendant No.4 under registered sale deed

dated 26.02.1996. Defendant No.1 has also sold portion

of property in favour of defendant No.14 under registered

sale deed dated 01.02.1996. Further, there are alienations

in favour of defendant Nos.12 and 18. On examining para

No.8(a) of the plaint, it clearly emerges that subsequent

purchasers have further meddled with property and there

are several transactions for valuable sale consideration.

13. On reading these pleadings found in para

Nos.3, 5 and para No.8(a), it is clearly evident that

plaintiff has no independent right. It is further clearly

evident that plaintiff is well aware of these transactions

- 17 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

and execution of GPA by his grandfather. These

transactions pursuant to GPA are of the year 1996. The

suit is filed in the year 2005. If these significant details

are looked into, I am of the view that the principles laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited

supra are not applicable to the present case on hand.

If judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for

the plaintiff are looked into, it speaks about the case

where plaintiffs were not aware of the transactions and

they gained knowledge in the year 2013-14 and the

Hon'ble Apex Court also found that the plaintiffs, who have

instituted a suit, were found to be in possession of the suit

schedule property. Therefore, the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, has no

application to the present case on hand.

14. Order 7 Rule 11 of 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 Court can exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 of

- 18 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

CPC., at any stage of the suit, either before registering the

plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendants, or

before conclusion of the trial. For the purpose of deciding

an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (b) of

CPC., the averments in the plaint are germane; the plea

taken by the defendants in the written statement would be

wholly irrelevant at that stage. Perusal of Order 7 Rule 11

of CPC., shows that plaint can be rejected only if it

appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by

any law. Even if the expression of the statement in the

plaint is given a liberal meaning, documents filed in the

plaint may be looked into but nothing more. It is a trite

law that Courts must give a meaningful reading to the

plaint and if it is manifestly vexatious or merit less in the

sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Court may

exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

Therefore, the Court while considering an application

under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC., cannot take out

submissions in the plaint in isolation but has to conduct a

meaningful reading of the plaint. If the Court concludes

- 19 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

that suit claims are barred by law, it has no option but to

reject the plaint. The power to reject a plaint or to retain

it for amendment should be exercised in clear case.

15. The plaintiff deserves to be non-suited on

two counts. Firstly, the plaintiff has no locus to institute

the present suit. At para No.2 of the plaint, he has

admitted that suit property is the absolute property of his

grandfather. The plaintiff's grandfather has executed GPA

that has led to alienations and the plaintiff's father has

signed as a witness to the said GPA. The father of the

plaintiff has neither challenged the said GPA nor the sale

deed. The plaintiff being grandson has no independent

right in the property. If grandfather of the plaintiff has

alienated property through GPA, which was never

questioned by his grandfather, the plaintiff has no locus to

question these alienations. The plaint is also liable to be

dismissed on the ground of limitation and also for want of

cause of action. On reading para Nos.3 and 5 of the plaint,

it is clearly evident that these transactions by his

- 20 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

grandfather are found to be within the knowledge of the

plaintiff. Therefore, suit for declaration questioning the

sale deeds of the year 1996 by filing a suit in the year

2005 is hopelessly barred by limitation. Even though in

absence of an application seeking rejection of the plaint,

there is a mandatory duty casts on the Courts to non-suit

the plaintiff under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. The

admitted pleadings in the plaint clearly demonstrate that

the present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The

cause of action indicated at para No.9 of the plaint cannot

be accepted. This aspect is rightly dealt by the Trial Court

and the Appellate Court, while rejecting the plaint.

If plaintiff was aware of GPA and subsequent alienations

made by his grandfather in the year 1996, the cause of

action indicated at para No.9 is found to be imaginary and

illusory and therefore, the plaintiff is liable to be non-

suited even on the ground of cause of action. If these

significant details are examined, this Court is of the view

that Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint. The

Appellate Court has independently assessed entire

- 21 -

NC: 2023:KHC:44619

materials on record and thereafter, has concurred with the

reasons and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court.

No substantial question of law arises for

consideration.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NBM