Karnataka High Court
Smt Manjuala Reddy vs Smt Rathnamma on 29 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
CRP No. 499 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 499 OF 2023 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MANJUALA REDDY
W/O Y.C.REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.1010, 26TH MAIN,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560041.
2. SRI. J. PRATHAPAREDDY
S/O J. THIMMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RES AT NO.75, 16TH CROSS,
11TH MAIN ROAD,
H.S.R. LAYOUT, 6TH SECTOR,
BENGALURU - 560102.
3. SRI. N. VIVEKANADA REDDY
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
Digitally RES AT NO.309,
signed by
SUMA PRESTIGE GREENWOODS,
Location: C.V.RAMAN NAGAR,
HIGH BENGALURU - 560093.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
4. SRI. Y.C. SANDEEP REDDY
S/O Y.C. RAMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RES AT NO.1010, 26TH MAIN ROAD,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560041.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BHANUPRAKASH V.G., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
CRP No. 499 of 2023
AND:
1. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA ALIAS NARAYANNIAH
ALIAS H.R. NARAYANAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
RES AT NO.115, KRISHNA REDDY BUILDING,
BEHIND PATALAMMA TEMPLE,
INDHIRAGANDHI CIRCLE,
SARAKKI, J.P.NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560078
GPA HOLDER
SRI. SATHAYNARAYANA REDDY,
S/O RAMAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RES AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA ROAD,
CARMEL RAM POST,
BENGALURU - 560035
2. SMT. SUNANDAMMA,
W/O LATE MATTAPPA M
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3. SRI. YEDUKUMAR
W/O LATE MATTAPPA M
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
4. SMT. DHANALASKHMI
W/O LATE MATTAPPA M.,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
5. SMT. TULASI
W/O LATE MATTAPPA M
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4
RESIDING AT NO.190, 13TH CROSS,
MUNESWARA TEMPLE ROAD,
KODIHALLI, BENGALURU - 560008.
6. SRI. N. MUNIREDDY
S/O LATE NARASIMHARADDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RES AT NO.192,
OPPOSITE TO VEERABADRA SWAMY TEMPLE,
KODIHALLI MAIN ROAD,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
CRP No. 499 of 2023
KODIHALLI, HALSOOR POST,
BENGALURU - 560008
7. SRI. T. KRISHNAPPA
S/O THOTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RES AT NO. 64, AKASH NAGAR
B. NARAYANAPURA
BENGALURU - 560016.
8. SRI. VENUGOPAL
S/O PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RES AT NO.246, 7TH CROSS,
NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE,
KODIHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560008
9. SMT. HEMAVATHI
W/O PURUSHOTHAM,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RES AT NO.80/22, 7TH CROSS,
SADDUGUNTEPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560029
10. SRI. M. MOHAN
S/O LATE G. MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RES AT NO. 184, 7TH CROSS,
BENGALURU - 560008
11. SRI. G. AMEER
S/O GAFAAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RES AT NO.46/12, 17,
18TH CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
RAJEEV GANDHINAGAR,
BOMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560068
12. SRI. G. NISAAR
S/O GAFAAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RES AT NO.46/9,
1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
RAJEEV GANDHINAGAR
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
CRP No. 499 of 2023
BOMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560068
13. SMT. PAASKAL HERALD KUTHINA
D/O REMAND KUTHINA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RES AT FOSSOYONIST COMMUNITY,
CARMEL RAM POST,
BENGALURU - 560035
14. SMT. G. ANUPAMA
W/O S. PRABHAKARA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RES AT GONIGATTAPURA VILLAGE
NERIGAPOST, SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU.
15. SRI. HOUSALAPRASADATRIPATI
S/O LATE PRABHUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
16. SMT. ARUNA TRIPATI
W/O HOUSALAPRASADATRIPATI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.14 TO 15 ARE
RES AT NO.20/6, 4TH CROSS
SUDHAMANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560027.
17. M/S FEATHER LITE LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.16/A, MILLERS ROAD,
K.K.M.P. BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR,
BENGALURU - 560052
REPRESENTATION BY ITS PARTNER
20(a) JAVAHAR GOPAL
20(b) MANOHAR GOPAL
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
CHETHAN B.C., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
CRP No. 499 of 2023
O.S.NO.1232/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.IV FILED
UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition challenging an
order dated 01.07.2023 passed by the II Additional Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (henceforth referred to as
'Trial Court') in O.S.No.1232/2019 by which, an
application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11(a) and
(d) of CPC was rejected.
2. The respondent No.1 herein filed
O.S.No.1232/2019 for declaration of her title to the suit
property and for consequential relief namely, declaration
that the sale deeds executed interse between the
defendants was not binding upon her. The suit was in
respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.31/16 of Gattahalli village,
Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, which was renumbered as
Sy.No.218 and bifurcated as Sy.Nos.218/1, 218/2 and
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
218/3 in all measuring 5 acres. Respondent No.1 claimed
that the aforesaid property was one amongst many other
properties that were allotted to the share of her husband -
Narayanappa and Venkatappa at a partition, which was
reported in R.A.No.29/1947-48. She contended that her
husband/Narayanappa and Venkatappa had alienated the
land bearing Sy.No.31/14, while the land bearing
Sy.No.31/16, which was renumbered as Sy.No.218 and
bifurcated as Sy.Nos.218/1, 218/2, 218/3 was not
alienated or encumbered in favour of any person. She
therefore, contended that upon demise of her husband,
she was entitled to a share in the suit property. She
claimed that Mattappa and his family members, claiming
that they had title in respect of the land bearing
Sy.No.31/16 had brought about various sale deeds to
which neither she nor Venkatappa were parties and
therefore, claimed that all those deeds executed by
Mattappa and his family members and consequent sale
deeds are not binding upon her.
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
3. The suit was contested by the petitioners
herein, who also filed an application under Order VII Rule
11(a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint primarily
contending that (i) the plaintiff had filed a false and
frivolous suit; (ii) that two sale deeds were executed by
the husband of the plaintiff/Narayanappa and Venkatappa
on 21.05.1953 and on verification of the boundaries, it
was clear that the husband of the plaintiff along with his
mother sold 5 acres of the land and similarly, Venkatappa
sold 5 acres of land. Therefore, the plaintiff has no locus
standi to file a suit for declaration of her title in respect of
Sy.No.31/16, as what was allotted to the share of
Venkatappa and husband of plaintiff was 10 acres in
Sy.Nos.31/14 and 31/16 and since they had sold 10 acres
of land, they do not have any subsisting right, title and
interest in the land bearing Sy.No.31/16; (iii) that suit is
filed after 78 years from the date of sale of the suit
schedule property from the husband of plaintiff; (iv) that
various transactions were brought about from the year
1953 and onwards and therefore, the suit is barred by the
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
law of limitation; (v) that the plaint is a result of clever
drafting creating an illusory cause of action.
4. This application was contested by the
plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, who contended that the
land bearing Sy.No.31/16, which was later renumbered as
Sy.No.218 and bifurcated as Sy.Nos.218/1, 218/2, 218/3
was never encumbered to any person more particularly, in
favour of Mattappa and his family members and therefore,
any sale brought about by Mattappa and his family
members is nonest and not binding upon the plaintiff and
therefore, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein is entitled
to seek appropriate title and consequent declaration that
the sale deed executed by Mattappa and his family
members and the consequential sale deeds are all null and
void and not binding upon her. It was contended that the
contentions urged by the petitioners herein were all
questions of fact, which have to be adjudicated after trial
and not in an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and
(d) of CPC. The Trial Court after considering the
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
contentions as well as the averments of the plaint, held
that the contentions urged by the petitioners herein were
pure questions of fact, which have to be adjudicated after
a trial and not at an interlocutory stage by entertaining the
application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioners are before this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that even as per the case of
plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, her husband and her
brother-in-law Venkatappa were jointly allotted 5 acres in
Sy.No.31/14 and 5 acres in Sy.No.31/16. He submitted
that both of them had conveyed 5 acres along with their
mother in the year 1953. He contended that in both the
sale deeds, the survey number was mentioned as
Sy.No.31/14. Therefore, it has to be construed that both
of them had disposed off the land bearing Sy.Nos.31/14
and 31/16 and thus, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is not
entitled to file a suit for partition that too, after nearly 70
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
years after encumbering the suit property. He submitted
that the boundaries mentioned in both the sale deeds do
not tally thereby giving clear impression that what was
sold was two different portions of the land namely,
Sy.Nos.31/14 and 31/16. He thus contends that the Trial
Court could not have entertained such a mischievous
plaint. He also contends that there are several
transactions which are brought about and the petitioners
herein have purchased the portion of the land bearing
Sy.No.31/14 and that the petitioners are unnecessarily
roped into the suit.
7. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel for
plaintiff/respondent No.1 submits that the petitioners had
deliberately suppressed various proceedings between the
parties in respect of suit schedule property. She contends
that revenue proceedings was initiated relating to the
revenue records before the Assistant Commissioner and
Deputy Commissioner, which finally ended up before this
Court in W.P.No.40957/2019, where the petitioner herein
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
filed a memo stating that they have no right, title and
interest over the land bearing Sy.No.31/16 and filed a
memo restricting their title to the land bearing
Sy.No.31/14, measuring 4 acres and categorically declared
that they have no right or claim over the land bearing
Sy.No.31/16 of Gattahalli village. She therefore, contends
that when the petitioners do not have any interest in the
land bearing Sy.No.31/16, they cannot file application for
rejection of the plaint which is filed in respect of the land
bearing Sy.No.31/16. She also contends that this
judgment of the learned Single Judge was carried in an
appeal by the petitioners herein and the Division Bench,
while considering the contentions, held,
"Though the learned counsel for the
present appellants filed memo to the effect that
they have no right, title and interest in
Sy.No.31/16 and specifically stated that they
have purchased 4-00 acres of land in Old
Sy.No.31/4 New No.218 of Gattahalli Village
and having possession of the said land."
8. The learned Single Judge also held as follows:-
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
"12. It is also not in dispute that the
present appellants also filed written statement
disputing the title of the present respondent No.5
and the matter has to be adjudicated before the
competent Civil Court. When there are disputed
facts with regard to survey numbers, extents and
two persons claiming their title in respect of
Sy.Nos.31/16 and 31/14, according to the
appellants, both the Survey numbers are sold by
the husband of the 5th respondent and his brother
and the appellants have purchased 4-00 acres of
land in Sy.No.31/14 new No.218/2 of Gattahalli
Village and taken possession, it is the 5th
respondent who already filed the original suit
before the Competent civil Court to adjudicate her
right. It is also not disputed that the Assistant
Commissioner by the order dated 28.04.2017 filed
by the 5th respondent in respect of Sy.No.31/14,
measuring 5-00 acres of Gattahalli Village, under
Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act,1964 and for the reasons, it is stated that
Sy.No.31/16 has been assigned new Sy.No.218
measuring 5-00 acres situated at Gattahalli Village,
very curiously in page 18 of the order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner. It is stated as under;
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
"Para 18 - Further, even the order of the
ADLR in assigning the new survey Nos.218/1,
2 and 3 to the old Sy.No.31/14 had not been
questioned by the petitioner before
appropriate forum and hence, the contention
of the petitioner that the property in old
Sy.No.31/16 has been assigned new survey
No.218 is not acceptable"
9. Learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1
also referred to the observations made by Division Bench
of this Court in the judgment rendered by W.A.
No.1024/2021, and the same reads as follows:
"13. xxx It is for her to establish her
title in respect of the property in question,
thereby where there are disputed facts in
respect of survey numbers and the sale deeds.
The Deputy Commissioner has no right to
decide title between the parties. It is
competent civil court which is alone has
jurisdiction to decide the title between the
parties. Therefore, the learned single Judge is
not justified in setting aside the order passed
by the Deputy Commissioner as the Deputy
Commissioner has no right to decide title
between the parties. Therefore, the learned
single Judge ought to have held that the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
18.06.2019 in Revision Petition No.513/2017
Annexure 'F' would be subject to the result of
the suit pending between the parties and the
petitioner has to delegate to adjudicate the suit
in O.S. No.1232/2019, thereby the learned
single Judge is not setting aside the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner. "
10. She also contended that in respect of another
proceeding, which was before this Court in W.P.
No.9683/2022 connected with W.P. No.20772/2022, a
coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated
16.01.2023 observed as follows :
"9. This Court is also of the considered
opinion that if the names of the petitioners
herein are not already entered in the land
records, then they will have to await the result
of the suit in O.S. No.1232/2019. They shall
not be permitted to approach the revenue
authorities to have their names entered in the
land records on the strength of the respective
sale deeds that were executed way back in the
years 2013 and 2019."
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
She contended that the respondent No.1 - Smt.
Rathnamma represented by Sri Sathyanarayanareddy had
already filed a suit in O.S. No.1232/2019 for declaration
that she is the absolute owner of land measuring 05 Acres
in Sy. No.31/16 and that a coordinate Bench of this Court
in terms of the said order dated 16.01.2023, had directed
the parties to work out their rights in so far as the land in
Sy. No.31/16 is concerned in the pending suit i.e., O.S.
No.1232/2019. She, therefore, contends that the
petitioners were bound to disclose all these proceedings in
the application filed by them before the Trial Court for
rejection of the plaint. She also contends that even before
this Court, the petitioners had deliberately suppressed the
aforesaid proceedings. She further contends that
notwithstanding the above, the question which arises for
consideration is whether the husband of respondent No.1
and her brother-in-law had encumbered or alienated the
land bearing Sy. No.31/16 or not, arose for consideration
before the Civil Court. She contends that in view of the
memo filed by the petitioners that they did not have any
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
right, title or interest in the land bearing Sy. No.31/16, the
petitioners cannot seek for rejection of the plaint. She
therefore contends that at any rate, the plaint cannot be
rejected on the grounds urged by the petitioners.
11. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned
senior counsel for the respondent No.1.
12. It is now well settled that a plaint can be
rejected if it does not disclose a clear cause of action or
that it is expressly barred by the provisions of any law and
for doing so, the Court is bound to look into the averments
of the plaint alone. It is also well settled that the Court
should not hesitate to shoot down a suit based on an
illusory cause of action or due to clever drafting resulting
in a mirage of a cause of action. In the present case, the
respondent No.1 claimed that her husband and her
brother-in-law were entitled to land in Sy Nos.31/14 and
31/16 in terms of a compromise decree passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Mysore in R.A. No.29/1947-48.
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
Therefore, the antecedent title of the husband of the
respondent No.1 is not much in doubt. The only question
that needs to be considered by the Trial Court is whether
the husband of the respondent No.1 and her brother-in-
law had ever sold the land bearing Sy. No.31/16 that fell
to their share. The other question that may arise for
consideration is whether the sale deed brought about by
the husband of respondent No.1 and her brother-in-law in
the year 1953 related to the land in Sy. No.31/14 or Sy.
No.31/16 or only in respect of Sy. No.31/14. The
petitioners herein claimed title in respect of the land
bearing Sy. No.31/14 and therefore, the question whether
the land purchased by them is the land bearing Sy.
No.31/14 or Sy. No.31/16 is a matter that has to be
decided by the Trial Court after a full-fledged trial and this
certainly cannot be adjudicated or decided in an
application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There is no error
committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application in
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43408
I.A. No.IV filed by the petitioners herein / defendant
Nos.16 to 19 warranting interference by this Court.
Accordingly, this petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
The pending I.A, if any, stands disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMR - para 1 to 8
SMA - para No.9 till the end
