Karnataka High Court
Sri A V Srinivas vs Sri N Kempaiah on 6 June, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 204/2024
C/W
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 434/2024,
WRIT PETITION NO.19689/2024 (GM-CPC)
IN CRP NO.204/2024
BETWEEN
1. SRI N KEMPAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. M. BHAGYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE N.KEMPAIAH
AGED 67 YEARS
1(b) SRI. K.B.DURGAPRASAD
S/O LATE N.KEMPAIAH
1(c) SMT. K.B. SUPRIYA
W/O SRI. RAMESH L
ALL ARE R/A NO.43, 1ST MAIN
SARASWATHINAGAR
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-40.
2. SRI N NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
2
3. SRI N RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE
SONS OF LATE SRI NANJEGOWDA
R/O ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE
KAILANCHA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT
RAMANAGARA 562159
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI A V SRINIVAS
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. M KALPANA
W/O LATE A.V.SRINIVAS
1(b) SRI. A.S.PUNEET KUMAR
S/O LATE A.V.SRINIVAS
1(c) SRI. A.S. SUNIL KUMAR
S/O LATE A.V.SRINIVAS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.26,
KAPASHREE NILAYA
1ST MAIN, L.V.ENCLAVE
ABBIGERE, B'LORE-90.
2. SRI A V SOMASUNDAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. SRI A V PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
3
R2 AND R3 ARE SONS OF LATE
SRI A V VENAKATARAMANA SHETTY
R/O ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE
KAILANCHA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT
RAMANAGARA - 562 159
4. T NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O LATE SRI THIMMA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/O GODUR VILLAGE
HAROHALLI VILLGE
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTIRICT - 562 112
.......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B C VENKATESH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3
V/O/D. 24.04.2024, NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 09.01.2024 PASSED ON I.A. IN OS.NO.148/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, RAMANAGARA, REJECTING THE I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER 7
RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT.
IN CRP NO.434/2024
BETWEEN
1. SRI A V SRINIVAS
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. M KALPANA
W/O LATE A.V.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
1(b) SRI. A.S.PUNEET KUMAR
4
S/O LATE A.V.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
1(c) SRI. A.S. SUNIL KUMAR
S/O LATE A.V.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
ALL ARE R/ANO.26, KAPASHREE
NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, L.V.ENCLAVE
ABBIGERE, B'LORE-90.
2. SRI A SOMASHEKAR
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
3. SRI A V PRAKASH
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/A ANKANAHALLI
VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA 562159
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B C VENKATESH., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI N KEMPAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. M. BHAGYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE N.KEMPAIAH
AGED 67 YEARS
1(b) SRI.K.B.DURGAPRASAD
S/O LATE N.KEMPAIAH
AGED 45 YEARS
SMT. K.B. SUPRIYA
5
1(c) D/O LATE N. KEMPAIAH
W/O SRI. RAMESH L
AGED 42 YEARS
ALL ARE R/ANO.43, 1ST MAIN
SARASWATHINAGAR
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-40.
2. SRI N NANJUNDAIAH
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
R/A ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA 562159
3. SRI N RAJANNA
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
NO 42, MATRUKRUPA NILAYA,
5TH CROSS, KALIDASA LAYOUT,
SRINAGARA,
BENGALURU 560050
4. SRI T NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O LATE THIMMASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING GODURU VILLAGE,
HAROHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562112
.......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3
V/O/D.10.09.2024 NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W)
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 13.02.2024 PASSED ON IA IN OS NO. 148/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
6
RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER XXIII
RULE 1(3) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE SUIT.
IN WP NO.19689/2024
BETWEEN
1. SRI N KEMPAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. M. BHAGYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE N.KEMPAIAH
AGED 67 YEARS
1(b) SRI.K.B.DURGAPRASAD
S/O LATE N.KEMPAIAH
AGED 45 YEARS
1(c) SMT. K.B. SUPRIYA
D/O LATE N. KEMPAIAH
W/O SRI. RAMESH L
AGED 42 YEARS
ALL ARE R/ANO.43, 1ST MAIN
SARASWATHINAGAR
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-40.
2. SRI N NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
3. SRI N RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
BOTH ARE S/O LATE SRI
NANJEGOWDA,
R/O ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT,
7
RAMANAGARA 562159
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI A V SRINIVAS
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. M KALPANA
W/O LATE A.V.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
1(b) SRI. A.S.PUNEET KUMAR
S/O LATE A.V.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
1(c) SRI. A.S. SUNIL KUMAR
S/O LATE A.V.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
ALL ARE R/ANO.26, KAPASHREE NILAYA,
1ST MAIN, L.V.ENCLAVE
ABBIGERE, B'LORE-90.
2. SRI A SOMASUNDAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
3. SRI A V PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE
SRI A V VENKATARAMANA SHETTY,
R/O ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA 562159
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B C VENKATESH., ADVOCATE)
8
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 08/07/2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGAR ON IA NO.7 IN OS NO.
148/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO
STAY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08/07/2024 PASSED BY THE
1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGAR ON IA
NO. 7 IN OS NO. 148/2019 PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE
WP.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
04.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)
These two Civil Revision Petitions and the writ petition
arise out of O.S.No.27/2019, on the file of learned I Addl.
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara. Therefore, all the
three matters were clubbed, heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court.
9
3. Prior to the plaintiffs filing O.S.No.27/2019, the 1st
defendant Sri N.Kempaiah had filed O.S.No.124/2018 seeking
permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule
properties, against the plaintiffs herein. It was the contention
of Sri N.Kempaiah that he is the absolute owner of the suit
schedule properties. Item No.1 of the suit schedule property
bearing Sy.No.160/1, measuring 2 acres 1 gunta situated at
Ankanahalli Village, Kilancha Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and
item No.2 bearing Sy.No.160/2 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas
were purchased by the plaintiffs brother Sri N.Nanjundaiah
under registered Sale Deed dated 03.06.1982. The sale deed
was executed by Sri Thimmashetty, the uncle of the
defendants. Subsequently, in a family partition that took
place between Sri N.Nanjundaiah and his brothers,
Sy.No.160/1 fell to the share of plaintiff and Sy.No.160/2 fell
to the share of another brother Sri Rajanna. Sri Rajanna
executed a Gift Deed dated 14.12.2017 in favour of the
plaintiff and in that way, the plaintiff became the absolute
10
owner of the suit schedule properties. The partition between
the family members of Sri N.Nanjundaiah took place under
registered partition deed dated 24.08.2001. Several
documents such as mutation orders, mutation entries, RTCs
and encumbrance certificates were produced by the plaintiff
Sri N.Kempaiah, to substantiate his contention that the
revenue entries were mutated pursuant to the sale deed dated
03.06.1982, partition deed dated 24.08.2001 and gift deed
dated 14.12.2017 and no objection were raised at the hands
of the defendants or their fathers. The trial court accepted
the contention of the plaintiff and decreed the suit in
O.S.No.124/2018, on 03.08.2020. The defendants were
permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties at
the hands of the plaintiff.
4. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed
O.S.No.27/2019 seeking declaration and injunction against
N.Kempaiah and his two brothers N.Nanjundaiah and
11
N.Rajanna. In the said suit, the plaint was returned for want
of pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter, the plaint was re-
presented before the competent civil court and was registered
as O.S.No.148/2019, which is the present suit. The suit in
O.S.No.124/2018 having been decreed, the plaintiffs herein
challenged the same in R.A.No.22/2020 and the same was
dismissed on 27.05.2021. The Regular Second Appeal
No.2058/2021 filed by the plaintiffs herein was also dismissed
on 13.04.2023. Thereafter, the defendants herein filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11 to reject the plaint. The
plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of
CPC seeking to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh
suit. Both the applications were rejected by the trial court.
Aggrieved, the defendants have filed CRP No.204/2024,
challenging the order passed by the trial court rejecting the
applicant filed under Order VII Rule 11.
5. After the trial court rejected the applications filed
by the plaintiffs seeking permission to withdraw the suit, the
12
plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to
amend the plaint and sought for a prayer for adverse
possession. The said application being allowed, the
defendants have filed W.P.No.19689/2024, assailing the same.
In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs have also filed CRP
No.434/2024, questioning the order of rejection of the
application filed under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of CPC.
6. Learned counsel Sri R.B.Sadasivappa, appearing for
the defendants contended that in the circumstances narrated
hereinabove, the trial court has erred in allowing the
application for amendment. It is pointed out that in the said
application, the plaintiffs have sought for deletion of
paragraphs No.2 to 5, 7 to 10 and 20 and to replace the same,
thereby changing the nature of the suit. In reality, all the
earlier pleadings and admission are permitted to be taken
away, while bringing in new set of pleadings. Learned counsel
also submitted that the application filed by the defendants
under Order VII Rule 11 was required to be allowed while
13
rejecting the plaint, since there is already a decree passed by
the very same court, accepting the contention of the
defendants herein that they were in lawful possession of the
suit schedule properties and permanently restraining the
plaintiffs from interfering with the suit schedule properties. In
that view of the matter, the amended prayer for adverse
possession could not have been allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed
reliance on Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others /vs./
Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Prathapsinh Maharaj
Bhonsle and another - (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3844,
where it was held that though it is a settled position of law
that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the
question of rejecting the plaint on that score has to be decided
after weighing the evidence on record, nevertheless in such
cases, where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the
suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the court should not
hesitate to reject the plaint at the threshold. Learned counsel
14
would submit that the trial court having rejected the
application filed by the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit, it was
not justified in allowing the application for amendment. The
trial court has not considered as to whether the nature of the
suit could change if the application for amendment is allowed.
The trial court has also not considered as to whether the fresh
prayer would be barred by limitation. In this regard, reliance
is placed on a very recent decision of the Apex Court in
Mallavva and another /vs./ Kalsmmanavara Kalamma
(since dead) by legal heirs and others -(2024) SCC
OnLine SC 3846. Reliance was also placed on a decision of a
Division Bench of this Court in RFA No.460/2017 dated
14.08.2024, between M.S.Jagadeesh and others /vs./
B.J.Jayasanthosh and others, where under similar
circumstances, the Division Bench found that there were many
alienations with respect to the plaint schedule property and
the plaintiffs did not raise a challenge within the period of
limitation prescribed. It is pointed out from the amended
15
prayer that the plaintiffs are now seeking to raise a challenge
to the sale deed dated 03.06.1982; partition deed dated
24.08.2001 and gift deed dated 24.12.2017. The original sale
transaction at the hands of the uncle of the plaintiffs happened
in the year 1982 and the revenue entries were mutated
commencing from the year 1982-83. Therefore, it is
contended that the fresh prayer is clearly time barred.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs would
contend that the decision in O.S.No.124/2018 cannot be
looked into at this stage, while considering the application filed
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Reliance is placed on
G.Nagaraj and another /vs./ B.B.Mruthyunjayanna and
others- 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1270, while contending that
the position of law has been reiterated that only the
averments made in the plaint and the documents produced
along with the plaint are required to be seen. The defence of
the defendants cannot be looked into. The Apex Court, in
Keshav Sood /vs./ Kirti Pradeep Sood and others -
16
(2025) SCC OnLine SC 398, has held that the plea of res
judicata could not have been gone into on an application made
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The reason is that the
adjudication on the issue involves consideration of the
pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the trial court
and the judgment of the appellate courts.
9. Heard the learned counsels for defendants and the
plaintiffs and perused the petition papers.
10. Insofar as the Civil Revision Petition filed by the
plaintiffs in CRP No.434/2024 questioning the rejection of the
application filed by the plaintiffs for withdrawal of the suit with
liberty to file a fresh suit, the petition is rendered infructuous
owing to the subsequent application for amendment being
allowed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs
has not made submission in that regard.
11. Coming to the trial court allowing the application
for amendment, it can be seen that the plaintiffs have sought
for deletion of paragraphs No.2 to 5, 7 to 10 and 20, while
17
seeking to replace the same in terms of the proposed
amendment. It is significant to notice that although the
application for amendment is filed on 02.04.2024, long after
the suit in O.S.No.124/2018 filed by Sri N.Kempaiah was
decreed on 30.08.2020 and confirmed by this Court in RSA
No.2058/2021 dated 13.04.2023, permanently restraining the
plaintiffs herein from interference with the suit schedule
properties, it is stated in the proposed amendment at para 12
that the defendants have taken forcible possession, illegally
without following due process of law, in collusion with revenue
officials who uploaded the Hadbastu sketch on 02.11.2023. It
is stated in the proposed para 20 that the cause of action for
the suit arose on 03.06.1982, when the 2nd defendant
purchased the suit scheduled properties from Thimmashetty
and his Son T.Narayanaswamy and subsequently on
24.08.2001 when defendants No. 1 and 3 had entered into a
partition and on 14.12.2017 when 3rd defendant executed
registered gift deed in favour of the 1st defendant. It is also
18
stated that the cause of action arose when the 1st defendant
filed O.S.No.124/2018, without mentioning the judgment and
decree passed on 30.08.2020. The plaintiffs has sought for
deletion of prayer No.1 i.e., for declaration that the plaintiffs
are the absolute owners and instead to replace prayer No.1 -
to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in
possession of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties by way of
adverse possession.
12. It is nothing but, clever drafting at the hands of
the plaintiffs. Having suffered a judgment and decree in
O.S.No.124/2018 that Sri N.Kempaiah is in lawful possession
of the suit schedule properties and a permanent injunction
being granted by a competent court, the plaintiffs herein
cannot be permitted to raise a contention that they are in
lawful possession. Therefore, the trial court has erred in
allowing the application for amendment where the plaintiffs
are now seeking a declaration that they have perfected their
title by way of adverse possession. In fact, the trial court
19
having rejected the earlier application filed by the plaintiffs for
withdrawing the suit, should have been careful in considering
such application for amendment where directly conflicting
prayer regarding possession is sought to be made, although
the plaintiffs have mentioned O.S.No.124/2018 in paragraph
No.12 and 20 of the proposed amendment. It is also crystal
clear that the plaintiffs are now seeking to delete the earlier
prayer No.1 for declaration of title and are now seeking a
declaration of adverse possession by way of prescription,
invariably because a competent court has already declared
that the defendants are in lawful possession and the plaintiffs
herein are permanently injuncted from interference of the suit
schedule properties.
13. Coming to the application filed under Order VII Rule
11 at the hands of defendant No.5, the trial court should have
considered the fact that the plaintiffs have admitted that the
cause of action originally arose on 03.06.1982, when Sri
Thimmashetty, the uncle of the plaintiffs, sold the properties
20
in favour of Sri Nanjundaiah, defendant No.2. In paragraph
No.14 and 16, the plaintiffs have admitted that the revenue
entries are mutated in favour of Sri Nanjundaiah and
thereafter in favour of Sri Rajanna and Sri N.Kempaiah. The
plaintiffs have sought to contend that they had no knowledge
of the sale transaction, other registered documents and the
revenue entries. In this regard, it would be relevant to notice
that it is a settled position of law that a registered instrument
shall be to the knowledge of entire world. In Suraj Lamps
and Industries (P) Ltd., /vs./ State of Haryana and
another (2009) 7 SCC 363, it was held that registration of
document gives notice to the world that such a document has
been executed. Registered documents enable people to find
out whether any particular property with which they are
concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or
liability and who is or are the person presently having right,
title and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form
and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or
21
relevance by recording them, where people may seek the
record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and
as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard
to them. That being the position, the learned counsel for
defendant No.5 is right in placing reliance on Mallavva and
antoher (supra), where it was held that if a suit is based on
multiple causes of action, the period of limitation would began
to run from the date when the right to sue first accrue. In
otherwords, the court held that successive violation of right
would not give fresh cause and the suit would be liable to be
dismissed if it was beyond the period of limitation counted
from the day when the right to sue first accrue. Further, in
Sri Mukund Bhavan Trust (supra) the Apex Court has held
that although it is a settled position of law that a limitation is
a mixed question of fact and law and the question of rejecting
the plaint on that score has to be decided after weighing the
evidence on record, nevertheless, in glaring cases, like the one
on hand, when it is clear from the plaint averments that the
22
suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the courts should not be
hesitant in granting relief, in rejecting the plaint, instead of
driving the parties back to the trial court.
14. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion
that the defendants should succeed in both the
petitions/applications regarding amendment of the plaint and
the rejection of the plaint. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) CRP No.434/2024 is dismissed.
(ii) W.P.No.19689/2024 is allowed and the
impugned order dated 08.07.2024 on I.A.No.7 in
O.S.No.148/2019, on the file of the learned I
Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara
is quashed and set aside.
(iii) CRP No.204/2024 is allowed. Consequently, IA
filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11
of CPC is allowed and the plaint in
O.S.No.148/2019, on the file of the learned I
Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara,
stands rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
KLY
CT: JL
