Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rathnamma vs Sri. K Ravi on 19 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47650
MSA No. 222 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2025 (RO)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RATHNAMMA,
W/O. LATE BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.128,
6TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE,
BRUNDAVAN EXTENSION,
MYSURU - 570 020.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRACHUD A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K RAVI
S/O. LATE M.B. KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
2. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA,
Digitally signed W/O. LATE M.B. KUMAR,
by PRASHANTH
NV AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
Location: High
Court of SL.NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING
Karnataka
AT NO.409/1, RAMAMANDIRA ROAD,
MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU MAIN
ROAD, BESIDE SHAKTHI GANAPATHI
STORES, MYSURU- 561 211.
3. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER
STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ACT, 1951
HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCHES AT NO.13
AND 12/1, 8TH CROSS, KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL
ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU-570009.
PRESENTLY OFFICE LOCATED AT NO.P-9/1,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47650
MSA No. 222 of 2025
HC-KAR
2ND FLOOR, SAHUKAR CHENNAIAH
ROAD, OPP. SRI. KRISHNADHAMA,
SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU-570009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.B. RUDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2 (ABSENT)
SRI. P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 43(1) (U) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.06.2025, PASSED
IN RA NO.167/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2022 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.VI IN OS.NO.1573/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.VI FILED UNDER
ORDER VII RULE 11(A) AND (D) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR
REJECTION OF PLAINT AND THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IS HEREBY
RESTORED TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS MSA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up
for final disposal.
2. The appellant being defendant No.2 in
OS.No.1573/2019 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (hereinafter referred as to 'the Trial
Court'), is impugning the judgment and decree dated
NC: 2025:KHC:47650
HC-KAR
04.06.2025 passed in RA.No.167/2022 on the file of the
learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru
(hereinafter referred as to 'the First Appellate Court') allowing
the appeal by setting aside the order passed on IA.VI dated
07.04.2022 by the Trial Court and thereby remanding the
matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
4. Heard Sri. Chandrachud A, learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri. SB. Rudrappa, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and learned Sri. PS. Malipati, learned counsel for
respondent No.3. Perused the materials including the Trial
Court records.
5. In view of these contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the appellant has made out any
grounds to allow the appeal?"
NC: 2025:KHC:47650
HC-KAR
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
6. Respondent No.1 - plaintiff has filed
OS.No.1573/2019 seeking declaration of his title and for
cancellation of registered sale deed dated 20.02.2006 executed
by defendant No.1 herein in favour of defendant No.2. It is
contended that defendant No.1 could not have executed the
sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the schedule
property which is described as Poultry Farm situated in
Sy.No.324/5 at Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk with
the boundaries mentioned therein, measuring 10.50 guntas
along with the shed measuring 100 X 25 feet and a bore well.
7. Defendant No.2 has appeared before the Trial Court
and filed IA.No.VI seeking rejection of the plaint. The Trial
Court allowed the said IA.No.VI filed under Order VII Rule
11(a) and (d) read with Section 11 of the Code Of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and accordingly, rejected the plaint.
Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred
RA.No.167/2022. The First Appellate Court by passing the
NC: 2025:KHC:47650
HC-KAR
impugned judgment allowed the appeal and set aside the order
passed on IA.VI by the Trial Court and remanded the matter for
fresh consideration. The said judgment passed by the First
Appellate Court is impugned in the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to the
notice of the Court that the schedule property was mortgaged
by the father of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 - KSFC
while obtaining a loan. Since he has not repaid the loan
amount, the said property was brought for sale under Section
29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The materials
placed before the Court disclose that the auction of the
property was held on 11.11.2003, in the public auction. The
appellant / defendant No.2 being the highest bidder purchased
the property. The possession certificate was issued by KSFC in
favour of the appellant on 05.01.2004 and the registered sale
deed was executed on 20.02.2006.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn the
attention of the Court to the document produced by him, which
shows that the plaintiff had filed the suit in OS.No.107/2004 on
15.04.2004 against defendant No.2 seeking permanent
NC: 2025:KHC:47650
HC-KAR
injunction in respect of the very same property. The appellant
being the defendant in the said suit filed a written statement
pleading about the auction sale and purchase of the property in
the public auction on 11.11.2003 and handing over of
possession certificate on 05.01.2004 by KSFC. Considering such
contention, the Trial Court held that the appellant herein was in
possession of the property and accordingly, dismissed the suit
vide judgment dated 06.02.2012. The plaintiff herein has
challenged the said judgment by preferring RA.No.35/2012.
The said appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment date
10.07.2014. It is pertinent to note that in the judgment passed
by the First Appellate Court in RA.No.35/2012, there is
reference to the sale deed dated 20.02.2006 executed by KSFC
in favour of the appellant.
10. The attention of the Court is also drawn to the
documents produced by the appellant, which clearly go to show
that the plaintiff had filed WP.No.8382/2012 seeking to quash
the sale deed dated 20.02.2006. The appellant was the
respondent in the said writ petition and he has filed his
statement of objections. The said writ petition came to be
NC: 2025:KHC:47650
HC-KAR
dismissed for default twice i.e., on 06.06.2016 and again on
15.09.2017. However, twice the matter was restored and finally
as per order dated 19.07.2019, the writ petition was dismissed
as withdrawn. Even though the petitioner has sought for
liberty to pursue the remedy in accordance with law, the said
liberty was not granted.
11. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant
that the aunt of the plaintiff had filed a suit in OS.No.148/2007
seeking partition and separate possession of the schedule
property, wherein the appellant herein was arrayed as
defendant No.18 and the KSFC as defendant No.17. It is
noticed that, both these defendants have taken similar
contentions putting forth the auction sale held, sale deed
executed, etc,. Respondent No.1 herein was arrayed as
defendant No.4 who also contested the suit. It is noticed that
the Trial Court in the said suit framed additional issue Nos.3
and 4 to the effect as to whether defendant No.18 i.e.,
appellant herein is a bona-fide purchaser of the property or not
and, whether item No.2 therein i.e., the schedule property in
the present suit was offered as security for the loan. Both these
NC: 2025:KHC:47650
HC-KAR
additional issues were answered in the affirmative and the suit
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.02.2020.
12. Admittedly, the said judgment was never challenged
by the plaintiff in the said suit or by defendant No.4 who is the
plaintiff in the present suit. Accordingly, it has reached a
finality.
13. Now it is the contention of learned counsel for the
appellant that inspite of all these proceedings, the suit
OS.No.506/2019 was filed by the plaintiff which was re-
numbered as OS.No.1573/2019 seeking declaration and
cancellation of the registered sale deed.
14. The Trial Court considered all these facts and
circumstances and passed the order by rejecting the plaint. The
First Appellate Court in RA.No.167/2022 held that Section 14 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the facts of the case
and therefore, allowed the appeal and matter was remanded
back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
15. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with
exclusion of time of proceedings bona-fide in Court without
NC: 2025:KHC:47650
HC-KAR
jurisdiction. Various proceedings referred to above including
filing of the writ petition seeking cancellation of the sale deed
cannot be said to be a bona-fide act on the part of the plaintiff,
that too, when the writ petition which was filed in year 2012
was kept pending, getting it restored twice and got dismissed
as withdrawn only on 19.07.2019. I could not find any bona-
fides on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the said writ
petition as no such relief is claimed in the writ petition could
have been granted. It is also pertinent to note that, the plaintiff
has filed the suit in OS.No.107/2004 for permanent injunction,
where the appellant has filed the written statement and
pleaded about the auction sale and the possession certificate
issued in his favour.
16. Admittedly, the said suit was dismissed and even the
appeal was also dismissed. Under such circumstances, Articles
58 or 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could be made applicable
to the facts of the case. The plaintiff should have filed the suit
for cancellation of the sale deed at least within 3 years from the
date of knowledge.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47650
HC-KAR
17. The materials on record disclose that the sale of the
schedule property in the auction sale was brought to the notice
of the plaintiff atleast when the appellant as defendant has filed
written statement in OS.No.107/2004. Inspite of that, he has
not chosen to file any suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed
or seeking declaration in that regard. Merely because, he has
invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the writ petition,
which was not available to him, the time spent in prosecuting
such writ petition cannot be a ground to exclude the time
spent, which was apparently not maintainable. Under such
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the First Appellate
Court had committed an error in passing the impugned
judgment. The Trial Court has appreciated the materials on
record in a proper perspective, had allowed the application and
rejected the plaint. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in
RA.No.167/2022 is liable to be set aside and the order passed
by the Trial Court in OS.No.506/2019 and IA.No.VI is to be
restored. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47650
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed with cost.
ii) The judgment and decree dated 04.06.2025
passed in RA.No.167/2022 on the file of the
learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Mysuru is hereby set aside.
iii) The order dated 07.04.2022 passed on IA.VI in
OS.No.1573/2019 (Old No.506/2019) by the
learned XIII Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Mysuru is restored.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
