Karnataka High Court
Mr. Lokesh T L vs Sri. R Ramanjinappa on 29 January, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4021
CRP No. 803 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 803 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. LOKESH T.L.,
S/O. LATE LAKSHMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/A NO.79, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS, BASAVASAMATHI LAYOUT,
VIDHYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 097.
ALSO AT
R/A SKANDA NIVASA,
NO.2743, E BLOCK,
1ST FLOOR, OPP. TO ROTTI MANE,
SAHAKARANAGAR,
Digitally signed by BENGALURU - 560 092.
DHARMALINGAM
Location: HIGH ...PETITIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. R. RAMANJINAPPA,
S/O SRI. PUJARI RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.215,
4TH B CROSS, MUNESWARA TEMPLE ROAD,
JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 064.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4021
CRP No. 803 of 2024
2. SMT. KANTHAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI. R. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO.265/1, GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD,
JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
3. SMT. PUSHPA,
W/O LATE J.N. ANAND,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
4. KUMARI. KIRANA A.,
D/O LATE J.N. ANAND,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
BENGALURU - 560 077.
5. KUMARI KEERTHANA,
D/O LATE J.N. ANAND,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN
MOTHER SMT. PUSHPA.
RESIDING AT NO.265,
4TH B CROSS, MUNIESHWARA
TEMPLE ROAD, JAKKUR VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 064.
6. SMT. SHARADA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
D/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA @ NAGARAJU,
W/O K.B.NARAYANA,
R/AT NO.103, 12TH CROSS,
1ST K BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 010.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:4021
CRP No. 803 of 2024
7. SRI. RAJU @ RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA @ NAGARAJU,
RESIDING AT NO.256,
GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD,
JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 064.
8. SRI. NAGESH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O LATE R. NAGARAJAPPA @ NAGARAJU,
RESIDING AT 179,
NEAR KENNY ENGLISH SCHOOL,
JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 064.
9. SMT. RADHA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
D/O LATE R.NAGARAJAPPA @ NAGARAJU,
W/O PATALAPPA,
R/AT BANDEEPA BIDHI,
BETTAHALSUR ROAD,
TARAHUNSE VILLAGE,
BANGALORE - 562 157.
10. SRI. N. DINESH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O NAGAPPAIAH,
R/AT NO.619/1, GKVK CROSS,
BYTARAYANAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 092.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUNIL P PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 TO R10 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE
ORDER DATED 26.11.2024)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:4021
CRP No. 803 of 2024
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 7.11.2024 PASSED ON APPLICATION IN OS
NO.4401/2024 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE
APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W
SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner who is defendant No.9 in the suit filed at
the hands of respondent No.1 herein, is aggrieved of rejection
of his application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The prayer in the suit in O.S.No.4401/2024 is as
follows:
"WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to pass a judgment and Decree
against the defendants.
"a) Declaring that, the purported Sale Deed
dated 18.03.2024, registered as Document No.BYP-1-
02424-2023-24 and stored in C.D.No.BYPD1395 in the
NC: 2025:KHC:4021
office of Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru
executed by defendant Nos.1 to 7 in favour of
defendant No.9 and 10 is null and void and not binding
on the plaintiff.
b) Grant perpetual injunction restraining the
defendants, their representatives agents, agents and
any person claiming interest or authority under
defendants in any manner from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule
property by the plaintiff.
c) Consequently direct the office of this
Hon'ble Court, to send the copy of the judgment and
decree to the office of the jurisdictional sub-registrar,
to make necessary entry or note on the instruments
contained in their books and records tat, the Sale Deed
dated 18.03.2023 registered as No.BYP-1-02424-2023-
24 and stored in C.D.No.BYPD1395 in the office of Sub-
Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru is declared as
null and void.
d) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances
of the case and pass decree with costs in the interest of
justice and equity."
3. It is the contention of defendant No.9 that in a prior
suit filed in O.S.No.892/2008 before the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC at Devanahalli, a compromise petition was filed between
NC: 2025:KHC:4021
the parties who were the family members that the suit schedule
property being one of the items of the schedule in
O.S.No.892/2008 was notified was acquired by BDA and if BDA
were to de-notify the acquisition then the suit schedule
property will fall to the share of Sri.R.Nagarajappa, the father
of defendant Nos.5 to 8, herein and that Sri. Ramanjinappa,
the plaintiff herein will not claim the right over the said items of
the suit schedule property.
4. It is contended that thereafter, the suit schedule
property was de-notified and Sri. R. Nagarajappa became the
absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Thereafter
defendant Nos.9 and 10 purchased the property under a
registered sale deed dated 18.03.2023 from the wife, children
and grand children of Sri. R.Nagarajappa. It was therefore
contended that the plaintiff being party to the compromise
petition entered in O.S.No.892/2008, cannot now be permitted
to raise a plea with the suit schedule property is a joint family
property.
5. During the course of this proceedings, this Court
had looked at the compromise petition which has been
NC: 2025:KHC:4021
produced at Annexure-B and found that item No.4 of the suit
schedule property in O.S.No.892/2008, which is the subject
matter of the present suit which measures 36 guntas in
Sy.No.105/10 situated at Jakku, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru
North Taluk was mutually agreed to be shared between the
plaintiff and defendant No.2 namely, Sri. Ramanjanappa and
Sri. R. Nagarajappa contrary to what is sought to be made out
by Defendant No.9. It was also agreed that in the meantime,
the plaintiff and defendant No.2 could alienate the said
property to a prospective buyer and they agreed to share the
consideration amount equally.
6. Contrary to what is sought to be made out by
Defendant No.9, no such prayer is made in the suit seeking the
set aside of the compromise decree. On the other hand, now it
is sought to be submitted at the hands of the learned counsel
for the Petitioner/Defendant No.9 that the very same plaintiff
have also filed on application in O.S.No.892/2008 seeking to
recall the compromise decree dated 22.04.2009, re-open the
suit and proceed with the original proceedings or to pass such
other order as the Court may deem fit.
NC: 2025:KHC:4021
7. Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sree Surya
Developers and Promoters Vs. N. Sailesh Prasad and
Ors.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the
petitioners as well as the contesting respondent No.1 and
perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the
contention sought to be raised by respondent No.9 in the
application filed under Order VII Rule 11 are not in any way
substantiated by the material already placed on record. The
decision in the case of Sree Surya Developers and
Promoters Vs. N. Sailesh Prasad and Ors. which is sought
to be relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner deals
with situation having regard to the provisions contained in
Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the CPC that bars a subsequent suit
being filed for annulling the compromise decree entered in the
previous suit.
9. The Trial Court has rightly considered the
contentions raised by the defendant No.9. The Trial Court has
culled out the prayer made in the suit and has rightly come to a
NC: 2025:KHC:4021
conclusion that no such prayer has been made in this suit
seeking the annulment of the compromise decree in
O.S.No.892/2008. The Trial Court has thereafter came to an
conclusion that while perusing the plaint averments and
documents filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint and the
submissions made by both the parties, the cause of action is
made out and the question regarding limitation involve mixed
question of fact and law and at this juncture the Court cannot
discuss nor go in to the other documents produced by
defendant No.9.
10. This Court does not find any infirmity in the
impugned order. Accordingly, civil revision petition stands
dismissed.
11. Any observations made by this Court touching upon
the merits of the matter shall not prejudice the case of any of
the parties before the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
RKA
