Karnataka High Court
Shri. Anjinappa vs Lakshmamma on 18 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21057
MSA No. 95 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.95 OF 2022 (RO)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. ANJINAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
SHIGEHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 067.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LAKSHMAMMA
D/O CHIKKAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT SULAKUNTE COLONY
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 037.
KARNATAKA
NALLAMMA (DEAD)
W/O LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS,
LRS ON ALREADY ON RECORD
2. SHOBHA @ LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
D/O CHIKKAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
3. KANTH RAJU
S/O ANJINAPPA C,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21057
MSA No. 95 of 2022
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
4. SHILPA
D/O ANJINAPPA C,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
5. SUDHAKAR
S/O ANJINAPPA C,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
6. KRISHNAMMA
D/O CHIKKAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
7. SAVITHRAMMA
D/O CHIKKAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
8. RATHNAMMA
D/O CHIKKAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 067.
9. SRINIVAS
S/O CHIKKAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
10. VASANTH KUMAR
S/O SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
11. MUKUNDA
S/O SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
12. SHAILA
D/O SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21057
MSA No. 95 of 2022
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 7 AND 9 TO 12 ARE
RESIDING AT SHIGEHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHARALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 067.
13. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O CHIKKAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
14. POORNIMA C
D/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
15. RAKESH C
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
16. SUSHMA C
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.13 TO 16 ARE
RESIDING AT KAMAKSHIPALYA
BENGALURU - 78.
17. GEETHANJALLI DEVELOPERS
PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SATHISH MEESALA
S/O SUBBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OFFICE AT 179, 15TH MAIN,
17TH CROSS, J P NAGAR,
5TH PHASE, BENGALURU-78.
...RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2022,
NOTICE TO R2 TO R17 ARE DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2024,
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:21057
MSA No. 95 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF THE
CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
04.08.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.186/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
23.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1248/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. SENOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (R) DISTRICT,
BENGLAURU, ALLOWING THE IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7
RULE 11 (a) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The challenge is made to the order passed by the
First Appellate Court remanding the matter by setting aside the
order passed by the Trial Court on an application filed under
Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC. The appellant herein filed an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and 11(d) CPC
contending that there is no cause of action for filing the suit
and suit is liable to be rejected.
3. The Trial Court having considered the grounds
urged in the application, comes to the conclusion that there is
NC: 2025:KHC:21057
HC-KAR
no cause of action and plaint is liable to be rejected. The Trial
Court also made an observation that nowhere in the pleading,
the plaintiff has stated as to how the release deed is illegal and
not binding on the plaintiff. Nowhere, the plaintiff pleaded that
she was taken to Sub-Registrar office forcibly and out of
coercion and threat, they got obtained the signature of the
plaintiff on the release deed. Having considered these reasons,
the Trial Court allowed the application.
4. The same has been challenged before the First
Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having considered
the grounds urged in the application as well as the statement of
objections, reassessed the material on record and taken note of
the fact that specific averments are made in the plaint that
property belongs to their father, they are in joint possession
and enjoyment of the property and also contend that defendant
No.2 got converted the land out of total extent of 2 acres 39
guntas for non-agricultural residential purpose as per order
dated 25.04.2012. In the meantime, the defendant No.2 also
executed a joint development agreement in favour of defendant
No.18 along with defendant Nos.3 to 6. It is also the specific
averment in the plaint that on the very same day, a release
NC: 2025:KHC:21057
HC-KAR
deed got registered by defendant Nos.7 to 17 and plaintiff,
wherein defendant No.2 has agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- to the plaintiff and other defendants. It is
further agreed to pay balance amount within three months with
two Villas and there is a breach of this contract. Looking into
these pleadings, the Trial Court has formed an opinion that
plaintiff should have filed a suit for specific performance of the
contract and not a suit for partition, because there is no brevity
of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.18. The
certified copy of the release deed is also on record which is
executed by the plaintiff.
5. Having taken note of the relinquishment deed and
also averments made in the plaint, specific contention was
taken that only made payment of Rs.9,00,000/- and also the
fact that joint development agreement came into existence on
the very same day is not in dispute and when the promise was
made to make the payment of Rs.15,00,000/- and giving two
Villas and she has signed the documents and when such
averment is made in the plaint, the First Appellate Court also
having considered the grounds urged in the application, comes
to the conclusion that the said issue to be enquired by the Trial
NC: 2025:KHC:21057
HC-KAR
Court, as fraud vitiates the entire proceedings. When fraud is
alleged, the Trial Court should have permitted the plaintiff to
lead evidence and also further observed that land was a
tenanted land and her father was a tenant and he had applied
for granting occupancy rights. When the application was
pending, her father died. In other words, the property is a self-
acquired property of her father, by intestate succession, it has
fallen in the hands of successors and also while discussing in
respect of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the First
Appellate Court also observed that Sections 91 and 92 of the
Indian Evidence Act is very clear that plaintiff can question the
validity of the very release deed which is stated to be executed
under a false promise.
6. Having taken note of these reasons and when
disputed facts are involved, matter requires adjudication and
mere reliance on the document of relinquishment deed and
coming to the conclusion by the Trial Court that there is no
cause of action, the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the
conclusion that the very approach of the Trial Court is
erroneous, unless the matter is adjudicated with regard to false
promise and obtaining a document. When such allegations are
NC: 2025:KHC:21057
HC-KAR
made, the Trial Court comes to an erroneous conclusion that
there is no cause of action. When such finding was reversed by
the First Appellate Court and remitted the matter back to the
Trial Court to decide the matter on merits to consider the
matter with regard to the disputed facts to be considered in a
original suit, I do not find any error committed by the First
Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court rightly comes to
the conclusion that matter requires trial and disputed facts has
to be ascertained only after conducting trial. Hence, I do not
find ground to set aside the order of the First Appellate Court
and reasons are given while setting aside the order of the Trial
Court and the Trial Court committed an error in coming to such
a conclusion that there is no cause of action when it is
specifically pleaded regarding cause of action, that too in
respect of the relinquishment deed executed which was taken
by false promise and whether the document was obtained
under a false promise is a matter of trial. Therefore, I do not
find any ground to consider the matter.
Accordingly, the miscellaneous second appeal is
dismissed. The observations made while disposing of this
NC: 2025:KHC:21057
HC-KAR
appeal shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the
matter on merits.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
