Karnataka High Court
Sri. B. Venkataswamy Reddy vs Sri. B. Krishna Reddy on 10 October, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40080
CRP No. 361 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 361 OF 2025 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
SON OF BHADRA REDDY @ GOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.52/10,
YARANDAHALLI VILLAGE,
NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
ANEKAL TALUK,
JIGANI HOBLI AND POST,
BENGALURU (URBAN DISTRICT)
BENGALURU- 560 105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. FREUD RICHARDSON P, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
SHARADAVANI
B 1. SRI. B. KRISHNA REDDY
Location: High
Court of SON OF BHADRA REDDY @ GOWDAPPA
Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 72, YARANDAHALLI VILLAGE
NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
JIGANI POST, BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU - 560 105.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
HEAD OFFICE AT 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40080
CRP No. 361 of 2025
HC-KAR
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVANA
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5
IN OS.NO.333/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.5
FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a), (b) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC,
FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Freud Richardson P., learned counsel for
the revision petitioner.
2. Defendant is the revision petitioner challenging
the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in
O.S.No.333/2020 dismissing the application filed under
Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of
CPC.
NC: 2025:KHC:40080
HC-KAR
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.333/2020 for
the following reliefs:
"Wherefore, the plaintiff prays for judgment and
decree in his favour and against the defendants:
a. Declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of
schedule B property and consequently direct the
defendant No.1 to demolish the factory premises
constructed on B schedule property and to deliver
vacant possession of B schedule property,
b. Declare the exchange deed dated 01.12.2005
registered in favour of defendant No.1 under a
document No.ANK-1-12221-2005-06 stored in CD
No AMKD 89 executed before the sub-registrar
Anekal on 21.12.2005 by defendant No.2 as null
and void,
c. Direct the defendant No.2 to execute one more
conveyance conveying the entire extent of land
including B schedule property.
d. For costs, such other relief or reliefs as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit in to grant under the facts
and circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice and equity."
3.2. Plaintiff contended that plaintiff is an
uneducated person and was not having worldly knowledge
and taking advantage of his illiteracy, defendant No.1 in
NC: 2025:KHC:40080
HC-KAR
the guise of the exchange deed, took possession of the
suit property by dispossessing the plaintiff in respect of
the suit property.
3.3. KIADB has notified the land for acquisition and
thereby the valuable rights of the plaintiff is put to
jeopardy and sought for reddressal of his grievances by
declaring that plaintiff is the owner of 'B' schedule
property and directed defendant No.1 to demolish the
factory premises constructed on the 'B' schedule property
and delivery of 'B' schedule property.
4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant No.1
appeared before the Trial Court and filed written
statement denying the plaint averments as well as filed an
application under Order VII rule 11(a), (b) and (d) read
with Section 151 of CPC vide I.A.No.5 for rejection of the
plaint on two counts.
NC: 2025:KHC:40080
HC-KAR
5. Firstly, the suit is barred by limitation and
secondly, on the ground of want of cause of action to the
suit.
6. In this regard, defendant relied on paragraph
Nos.15 and 20 of the plaint which reads as under:
"15. The plaintiff further submits that, he is an
uneducated man and not having worldly knowledge
and the defendant No.1 who was taking care of all the
family affairs, in collusion with his nephew have got
the said deeds executed by the defendant No2 in the
name of the plaintiff and defendant No1 but the
plaintiff was kept in Dark regarding the said exchange
deeds and he came to know about the same
documents only during 29th April 2020 when the
defendant No2 had forcefully taken possession of 5.65
guntas (571.88 Sq Meters) of land alleging that, the
KIADB had delivered the land equally i.e., 50% to
each.
16. The plaintiff further submits that, the defendant
No.1 taking advantage of the situate i.e., pandemic
situation and the closure of all courts curing lockdown
period had forcefully built the factory shed by utilizing
the iron structures the copy of the photographs
showing the new factory shed are at Document No.11.
17. The plaintiff further submits that, when the
plaintiff enquired the defendant about his illegal act,
for the first time after about 15 years the defendant
No 1 had shown the exchange deeds and thereafter
the plaintiff made a thorough enquiry in the KIADB
and came to know about this exchange deeds and
therefore obtained all the documents from KIADB.
NC: 2025:KHC:40080
HC-KAR
18. The plaintiff further submits that, said exchange
deeds were obtained by playing fraud upon the
plaintiff by utilizing his illiteracy and belief that, he
was having on the defendant No1. The defendant No1
in order to defraud the plaintiff have got separate
exchange deeds executed and the same is obtained
with a plan to knock off the property of this plaintiff.
19. The plaintiff further submits that, as per the
survey sketch, possession was delivered by KIADB and
as per the said sketch the plaintiff is entitled for 27
guntas. These exchange deeds speaks contrary to the
survey sketch and therefore this could be termed as a
fraud document only to make a wrongful gain.
20. The plaintiff further submits that, the defendant
Nol who has kept quite all along has now suddenly
wake up and took possession of 5.65 guntas (571.88
Sq Mtr) of land out of the schedule A property on 5th
May 2020 and the same is more particularly described
in the schedule B hereunder and hereafter called as
plaint schedule property."
7. Second ground for rejection of the plaint is with
regard to cause of action, defendant placed reliance on
paragraph No.22 of the plaint which reads as under:
"The cause of action for the aforesaid suit arose
on 21.12.2005 when the exchange deed was
registered and subsequently on 29th April 2020
the defendant No.1 had taken possession of 5.65
guntas (571.88 Sq Mtr) of land and built the
factory by dispossessing this plaintiff and the
cause of action to file the instant arose within the
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as the property is
situate within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court."
NC: 2025:KHC:40080
HC-KAR
8. It is the specific case of defendant No.1 that
exhange deed is a registered document. Therefore,
challenging the exchange deed in the suit is per se barred
by limitation and in view of discrepancy with regard to who
took the possession of the property as is found in
paragraph No.20 and there is no cause of action to the
suit.
9. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the
objection of the plaintiff, dismissed the application inter
alia holding in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the impugned
order as under:
"12. It is the contention of the defendant No.1 that
the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The
plaintiff is aware about the exchange deed in the
year 2005 itself. However in paragraph No.15 of the
plaint, the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation.
The plaintiff is aware about the exchange deed in the
year 2005 itself. However in para No.15 of the plaint,
the plaintiff categorically pleaded that he is entitle to
27 guntas of land to be re-conveyed by defendant
No.2. The extent was wrongly mentioned in the
exchange deed and it was kept in dark. Recently on
29.04.2020, the plaintiff came to know about the
said mistake. The said plea of the plaintiff is to be
proved by way of oral and documentary evidence.
NC: 2025:KHC:40080
HC-KAR
On plain reading of the averments of the plaint, the
plaint discloses cause of action and there is no
material to show that the plaint averments itself
indicates that the suit is barred by limitation.
Opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to
substantiate the plea taken in the plaint. The
question of limitation is mixed question of law and
fact. The plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of
mixed question of law and fact. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Salim D. Agboatwala's case referred supra,
categorically held that the condition precedent to
exercise the power are stringent and it is especially
so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground
of limitation. When the plaintiff claims that he gained
knowledge of essential facts giving rise to cause of
action only at a particular point of time, same has to
be accepted at stage of considering application U/o 7
Rule 11 of CPC. The plea regarding date on which
plaintiff gained knowledge of essential facts is crucial
for deciding question whether suit is barred by
limitation or not. The ratio laid down in the above
decision is applicable to the case on hand. The
contention regarding limitation is to be adjudicated
only after full pledged trial. Under such
circumstances, the decision relied by the learned
counsel for defendant No.1 in T. Arivandandam's
case and Ramisetty Venkatanna's case are
distinguishable and not applicable to the case on
hand.
13. As far as the contention regarding under
valuation and insufficiency of court fee is concerned,
admittedly the plaintiff has sought for the relief of
declaration with respect to agricultural property
paying revenue to the Government. The plaintiff
valued the suit U/Sec.24(a) and 26(c) of Karnataka
Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the plaintiff has
paid court fee of Rs.2,23,053/-. The defendants have
not placed any materials to show that the valuation
made by the plaintiff is undervalued. Under such
circumstances, the contention regarding
NC: 2025:KHC:40080
HC-KAR
undervaluation and regarding insufficiency of court
fees is not acceptable at this stage. The question of
issuance of statutory notice to defendant No.2
cannot be questioned by defendant No.1. The plaint
cannot be rejected at the isntance of defendant No.1
for non-issuance of statutory notice to defendant
No.2 at the time of filing of the suit. Under such
circumstances, defendant No.1 has failed to make
out sufficient grounds to reject the plaint U/o 7 rule
11(a), (b) and (d) of CPC. Accordingly, point No.1 is
answered in the negative."
10. This Court, having regard to the limited scope
of revisional jurisdication, reassessed the case of the
defendants.
11. On such reassessment, it is noticed that the
Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding with regard
to the discrepancy as to who took possession as mixed
question of law and fact. It is a matter which has to be
thrashed out by recording the evidence of the parties and
there is no scope for setting aside the impugned order.
12. Accordingly, the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40080
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby
dismissed.
ii. Defendants are at liberty to canvass all
favourable points in the pending suit.
iii. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KAV
CT: BHK
