Mr Nagarajaradhya vs Mr Manjunathaswamy
2025 Latest Caselaw 6564 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Mr Nagarajaradhya vs Mr Manjunathaswamy on 24 June, 2025

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

                          -1-




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                       BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
     CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.898 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1.   MR NAGARAJARADHYA
     S/O. LATE MR BASAVARADHAYA
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
     R/A 16, DAMEO PLACE, SHORT HILLS
     NEW JERSEY - 07078
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.


2.   MR NIRANJANARADHYA
     S/O. LATE MR BASAVARADHAYA
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     R/AT NO.4, PALACE CROSS ROAD
     CHAKRAVARTHY LAYOUT
     BENGALURU-560020.


3.   MRS VANITHA
     D/O LATE MR BASAVARADHYA
     W/O MR. SATISH
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
     R/A 2215, COMSTOCK LANE,
     NAPERVILLE ILLINOIS -60564
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
     REP BY HER GENERAL POWER OF
     ATTORNEY HOLDER
     NIRANJANARADHYA
                                          ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA & SRI. C.K.NANDA KUMAR.,
    SR. COUNSELS FOR SRI. ABHINAG S., ADVOCATE)
                           -2-




AND

1.    MR MANJUNATHASWAMY
      S/O. LATE K V RUDRAADYHA
      AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
      R/A NO.60 MUNIRAMAPPA GARDEN
      OPP. KEB LAYOUT SANJAYNAGAR
      BENGALURU-560094

2.    SUSHMA
      DAUGHTER OF LATE NAGAMANI
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

3.    MAHESH CHANDRA
      SON OF LATE NAGAMANI
      AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

      RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 ARE
      R/A 11 CROSS SADASHIVNAGAR
      BENGALURU-560096.
                                         .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHNAKAR., SR. COUNSEL A/W
   SRI. J.C.KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1
   V/O/D. 19.12.2024, NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS D/W)


      THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC AGAINST ST
THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN
OS.NO.1076/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, C/C IIND
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI,
DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE
11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT.


      THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
26.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS, THIS DAY, AT DHARWAD BENCH THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              -3-




CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS


                        CAV ORDER

       (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)


     This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners,

who were defendants No.1 to 3 in O.S.No.1076/2023, on

the file of the learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Devanahalli, being aggrieved of the rejection of

their interlocutory application in I.A.No.2 filed under Order

VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code

of Civil Procedure.

     2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be

referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

     3. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration

that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner in lawful

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property;

to set aside the registered release deed dated 28.09.2007,

on the ground that, late Sri.Basavaradhya, the plaintiff's

brother-in-law, taking undue advantage of the innocence

of the plaintiff and his family and with mala fide intention

to grab the suit schedule property from the plaintiff's
                              -4-




family,   coerced the plaintiff and his family members to

execute the release deed.

     4. After entering appearance, the defendants filed an

application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC for

rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does

not disclose cause of action and is barred by law.        The

Trial Court found that during the lifetime of the plaintiff's

father, he purchased the suit schedule property in the

name of his wife Smt.Shivamma (mother of the plaintiff),

in the year 1978.        The plaintiff's mother died on

18.06.2006, leaving behind the plaintiff and other legal

heirs. It was contended by the plaintiff that his brother-

in-law was dominating the affairs of the family and he

managed the family affairs.        It is contended that taking

advantage of the clout that his brother-in-law wielded on

the family members, he forced the plaintiff, his father and

sister to appear before the Sub-Registrar and directed

them to execute the release deed, to enable him to run

the business under the name and style as "Vinayaka

Industrial Agency". The plaintiff and family members were

told that his brother-in-law required funds to be raised for
                                  -5-




improvement of the business and therefore, documents

have to be pledged with a Bank. It is contended that the

defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit

schedule property.      However, when the plaintiff and his

father demanded re-conveyance of the property in their

favour, the defendants refused to do so. The Trial Court is

therefore of the opinion that since the suit is one for

declaration and permanent injunction, it cannot be said

that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The

Trial Court is of the opinion that having regard to the

allegations of fraud and coercion being pleaded, a full

fledged trial would be necessary to consider whether the

contentions raised by the plaintiff could be acceptable and

since the question of limitation is a mixed question of law

and fact, unless parties lead evidence, the question cannot

be decided.

     5.       Learned   Senior    Counsel   Sri.   Udaya   Holla,

appearing for the defendants submitted that there cannot

be any doubt that while considering an application under

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court is required to look into

the averments made in the plaint alone.             The learned
                               -6-




Senior Counsel would therefore draw the attention of this

Court to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of

C.S.Ramaswamy Vs. V.K.Senthil and Others, 2022

SCC OnLine SC 1330, where it was held that the

averments and allegations in the plaint with respect to

fraud are not supported by any further averments and

allegations how the fraud has been committed/played.

Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is

not   enough   and   the   allegations   of   fraud   must   be

specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by

using the word 'fraud' the plaintiff would try to get the suit

within limitation, which otherwise may be barred by

limitation.

      6.   Learned   Senior   Counsel    contended    that   the

plaintiff has contended in the plaint that the suit schedule

property was purchased by his father, in the name of his

mother and after the death of the mother, the plaintiff

along with his sister and father have succeeded to the suit

schedule property.    However, a declaration is sought by

the plaintiff that he alone is the absolute owner of the suit

schedule property.      Further, it is contended that the
                              -7-




reason why the plaintiff's father and sister have not joined

the plaintiff in the suit is that they are aware of the

execution of the release deed and the rights being

transferred under the release deed.          Learned Senior

Counsel would further submit that the plea of fraud and

coercion on the part of the plaintiff's brother-in-law and

that the plaintiff is innocent and overpowered by his

brother-in-law is a baseless statement, only to overcome

the law of limitation. It was contended that along with the

release deed, other documents were executed conveying

other properties in favour of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff

has deliberately concealed the said factum.        When the

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff took

exception to the statements made by the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the defendants, this Court called

upon the defendants to place on record such documents.

Accordingly, along with memo dated 21.03.2025 the

defendants tendered copies of Gift Deed dated 30.04.2010

executed by Sri.K.V.Rudraradhya (brother-in-law of the

plaintiff) transferring two pieces of property measuring 2

acres 29 guntas and 12 guntas respectively in favour of
                                       -8-




the plaintiff.     The plaintiff has got the revenue entries

changed in his name. Subsequently, the said lands were

acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development

Board      and    the    plaintiff      received          compensation       of

Rs.3,34,37,500/-.        Similarly, in a partition deed dated

16.11.2016, the plaintiff acquired 1 acre                      26 guntas in

Sy.No.52/4, and 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy.No.54, situated at

Konnaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk,

Bengaluru        Rural    District.         It       is     submitted      that

Sri.K.V.Rudraradhya        was        also       a    party    to   the    said

document. Therefore, it is false to contend by the plaintiff

that fraud and coercion was practiced on the plaintiff.

      7.    Learned      Senior       Counsel         placed    reliance    on

Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)

And     Others      (2020)        7     SCC          366,     where     similar

contentions were raised by the plaintiffs that they were

illiterates, not able to read and write and were only able to

put their thumb impression in the sale deed.                              Such

contention which was accepted by the Trial Court and

confirmed by the High Court were set aside by the Apex

Court while holding that this is a classic case where the
                                     -9-




plaintiffs, by clever drafting, attempted to make out

illusory cause of action and bring the suit within the period

of limitation.

      8.      Learned Senior Counsel Sri.C.K.Nanda Kumar,

also appeared for some of the defendants and supported

the   submissions        made      by     learned    Senior     Counsel

Sri.Udaya Holla.

      9.       Per      contra,      learned        Senior      Counsel

Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, appearing for the plaintiff had earlier

stoutly      defended    the      averments    in    the     plaint   and

contended that not even a piece of property was given to

the plaintiff. However, after the documents were filed by

the defendants along with the memo, learned Senior

Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar contended that the plaintiff

was not given a piece of property in the suit schedule

property which belonged to his mother. It was contended

that the documents now sought to be relied upon are not

the property belonging to the plaintiff's mother and the

statement made earlier was justified, since no part of the

property belonging to the mother was allotted to the

plaintiff.    It was also contended that the documents now
                               - 10 -




tendered    before   this   Court      cannot   be   taken   into

consideration, since what is required to be considered is

only the averments made in the plaint.

      10. In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn to

the decision in Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited

Vs Ashok Vidyarthi and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC

1612, where it was held that the documents referred to

by the defendants in support of their plea for rejection of

plaint, cannot be considered at this stage as these are not

part of the record with the Court filed along with the

plaint.

      11. Heard Sri.Udaya Holla and Sri.C.K.Nanda Kumar,

Senior    Counsels   for    the   defendants-petitioners     and

Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel for plaintiff-

respondent No.1 and perused the petition papers.

      12. During the course of the proceedings, it was

brought to the notice of this Court that Sri.Basavaradhya

died on 18.09.2017. The suit is filed on 04.10.2023.

Although it is contended in paragraph No.6 of the plaint

that Sri.Basavaradhya, forced the plaintiff and his family

members to come to the Sub-Registrar's office and forced
                                   - 11 -




them to affix their signatures on some documents stating

that to run the business, a loan was required and the

documents had to be executed in favour of the Bank to

obtain loan, nevertheless, in paragraph No.7 it is stated

that   Sri.Basavaradhya,      during       his     lifetime   tried     to

dispossess the plaintiff and his family members from the

suit   schedule       property.       It   is    also   stated        that

Sri.Basavaradhya told the plaintiff that he, his father and

sister have no right, title and interest in the suit schedule

property, as the same belongs to Basavaradhya and his

family members. It is also stated that the plaintiff's sister,

Smt.Umadevi, who was married to Sri.Basavaradhya

assured that they would return the property back to the

plaintiff's family.     It is stated in para No.9 that the

defendants got the khatha transferred in their name

following the death of their parents. It is also contended

that the plaintiff and his father requested the defendants

to re-convey the property but the defendants refused. It

is therefore clear that the plaintiff was aware of the fact

that Sri.Basavaradhya, during his lifetime had contended

that the property belongs to him.               The plaintiff has also
                              - 12 -




admitted that he sought for re-conveyance of property and

the same was refused.

     13.    Even if Section 17 of the Limitation Act, is

pressed into service, and if the suit is based upon fraud of

the defendants, and the period of limitation does not begin

to run until plaintiff discovered the fraud, with reasonable

diligence, it cannot be denied by the plaintiff that he

became aware of the "fraud" during the lifetime of

Sri.Basavaradhya.    Admittedly, Sri.Basavaradhya died on

18.09.2017.     Therefore, by applying Article 56 of the

Limitation Act (to declare a forgery of an instrument)

registered or Article 59 (to cancel or set aside an

instrument), 3 years being the period of limitation, the suit

is beyond the period of limitation.       To arrive at this

conclusion, no evidence is required and the averments

made in the plaint, is sufficient.

     14. In almost identical circumstances, in the case of

C.S.Ramaswamy (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court found

that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for cancellation of sale

deeds executed in the year 2005, after lapse of 10 years.

It was contended by the plaintiffs that by fraudulent
                               - 13 -




misrepresentation, the defendants got the sale deeds

executed.   The Apex Court held in paragraph No.31 as

follows:

       "31. Even the averments and allegations in the
       plaint with respect to fraud are not supported by
       any further averments and allegations how the
       fraud has been committed/played. Mere stating
       in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not
       enough and the allegations of fraud must be
       specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise
       merely by using the word "fraud", the plaintiffs
       would try to get the suits within the limitation,
       which otherwise may be barred by limitation.
       Therefore, even if the submission on behalf of
       the respondents - original plaintiffs that only the
       averments and allegations in the plaints are
       required to be considered at the time of deciding
       the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is
       accepted, in that case also by such vague
       allegations   with   respect    to   the   date   of
       knowledge, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to
       challenge the documents after a period of 10
       years. By such a clever drafting and using the
       word "fraud", the plaintiffs have tried to bring
       the suits within the period of limitation invoking
       Section 17 of the limitation Act. The plaintiffs
       cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the
       period of limitation by clever drafting, which
                              - 14 -




otherwise is barred by limitation. At this stage, a
recent    decision    of   this       Court   in   the     case
of Raghwendra Sharan Singh (supra) is required
to be referred to. In the said decision, this Court
had occasion to consider all earlier decisions on
exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC,
which     are   considered            by   this    Court     in
paragraphs 6.4 to 6.9 as under:--

"6.4. In T.Arivandandam [T.Arivandandam V. T.
V.    Satyapal, (1977)          4     SCC     467],      while
considering the very same provision i.e. Order 7
Rule 11 CPC and the decree of the trial court in
considering such application, this Court in para 5
has observed and held as under : (SCC p. 470)

"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in
condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of
the   process    of    the      court      repeatedly      and
unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement
of the facts found in the judgment of the High
Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now
pending     before     the       First     Munsif's      Court,
Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of
the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif
must remember that if on a meaningful -- not
formal -- reading of the plaint it is manifestly
vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, he should
exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
taking care to see that the ground mentioned
                         - 15 -




therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has
created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in
the bud at the first hearing by examining the
party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. An
activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law
suits."

.....

.....

6.7. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137] in paras 11 and 12, this Court has observed as under : (SCC p. 146)

"11. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.

12. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that

- 16 -

the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code.

(See T. Arivandandam v.

T. V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467].)"

6.8. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174], this Court has observed and held as under : (SCC pp. 178-79, para 7)

"7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to

- 17 -

the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage."

6.9. In Ram Singh [Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364], this Court has observed and held that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of

- 18 -

those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation."

15. It was concluded that by applying the law laid

down in earlier decisions, on exercise of power under

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and the averments in the plaint,

the Apex Court is of the opinion that both the courts below

have materially erred in not rejecting the plaint in exercise

of power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.

16. In the present case, the release deed was

executed by the plaintiff on 28.09.2007 and the suit is

filed in the year 2023, after lapse of more than 16 years.

The plaintiff has not claimed that he is illiterate or that he

does not know to read and write English. Therefore, where

the plaintiff has admitted execution and registration of the

release deed, the time for seeking cancellation starts

immediately after the registration of the document. The

plaint is therefore required to be rejected on the ground of

the suit being barred by limitation.

17. Recently, this court had an occasion to consider a

contention in CRP 318/2024, decided on 20.06.2025, that

in N.Thajudeen Vs. Tamil Nadu Khadi And Village

- 19 -

Industries Board, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3037, the

Apex Court had held, that where a prayer is made by the

plaintiff seeking declaration and possession, the period of

limitation would be 12 years. This court held that since

the plaintiff has sought for recovery of possession and

therefore, Article 65 of the Limitation Act would apply, but

it is to be noticed that the first cause of action arose when

the three sale deeds were executed and registered.

Therefore, even if 12 years is to be taken as the period of

limitation, the suit should have been filed in the present

context, in the year 2019, latest. However, the suit is filed

in the year 2023, long after the period of limitation. In

Khatri Hotels Private Limited And Another Vs. Vs.

Union of India and Another, (2011) 9 SCC 126, it

was held that the use of the word 'first' between the words

'sue' and 'accrued' as found in Articles 58 and 59 of the

Limitation Act, would mean that if a suit is based on

multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin

to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues.

That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it

would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit

- 20 -

will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of

limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first

accrued.

18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is

allowed. The impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed

on I.A.No.2, in O.S.No.1076/2023 on the file of learned III

Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli, is hereby

quashed and set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.2, filed by

defendants No.1 to 3 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d)

read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is

hereby allowed and the plaint stands rejected.

19. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

JT/DL CT: JL