[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri H S Vijayakumar vs Shashidhara H S on 23 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB
RFA No. 2657 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2657 OF 2025 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI H S VIJAYAKUMAR,
S/O H.C. SANNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT POOJEKOPPALU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-580 024.
2. SRI H.C. SANNASWAMY,
S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
Digitally signed
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST,
by ARSHIFA R/AT POOJEKOPPALU VILLAGE,
BAHAR KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA
KHANAM
Location: HIGH TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-580 024.
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI SHIVARAJU M K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHASHIDHARA H S,
S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT T #01. S.L.V. RAYAL APARTMENT,
7TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
SUBHASH NAGARA,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB
RFA No. 2657 of 2025
HC-KAR
KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 060.
2. SRI JAGADEESHA,
S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1131, 5TH A MAIN,
2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 010.
3. SRI BALAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.2220, 3RD BLOCK,
VISHVESHWARA NAGARA,
BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA,
2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-751 001.
4. SRI KIRAN H.R.,
S/O LATE RAMESHA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.429,
A LAKSHMIKANTHA NAGARA,
HEBBALU, 1ST STAGE, METAGALLI POST,
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 004.
5. SMT. SUMA,
W/O SRI B.S. CHANDRAMOULI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.431, B.H. MICO LAYOUT,
BOMMASANDRA, BEGURU ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 099.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. USHA M S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1;
SRI S.V SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI B.V KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRASHANTH CHANDRA S.N, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
---
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2025 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.III IN OS.NO.6/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB
RFA No. 2657 of 2025
HC-KAR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA, ALLOWING THE
I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
19.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the plaintiffs
challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2025
passed in O.S.No.06/2023 by the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Holenarasipura (for short 'the Trial Court').
2. The parties are referred to as per their
rankings before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal
are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.06/2023
seeking the relief of specific performance of the
agreements of sale dated 10.04.2015, 05.07.2016 and
NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB
HC-KAR
09.06.2017. In the said suit, the defendant No.1 filed an
application seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that
the plaint was filed beyond the period of limitation. The
Trial Court, on consideration of the material on record and
the provisions of law, proceeded to allow the application
and rejected the plaint on the ground that it was filed
beyond the period of limitation. Being aggrieved, this
appeal is filed.
4. Sri.Shivaraju M.K, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants-plaintiffs submits that the Trial Court
has committed a grave error in allowing the application
filed by the defendant No.1, without appreciating the
material on record in its proper perspective. It is
submitted that the Trial Court has failed to consider that
the respondents have received an advance amount to the
tune of Rs.26,50,000/- on 09.06.2017 and also executed
the sharas on the rear side of the agreement of sale and
acknowledged the same by affixing their signatures after
the alleged cancellation. It is further submitted that the
NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB
HC-KAR
Trial Court has failed to consider that in an application for
rejection of plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC,
only the averments in the plaint are to be considered and
the written statement or any other evidence cannot be
relied on. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, Smt.Usha M.S, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1, Sri.S.V.Srinivas,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and
Sri.B.V.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.3 support the impugned order of the Trial
Court and submit that the Trial Court has rightly
appreciated the law on the point and proceeded to reject
the plaint on the ground of limitation. Hence, they seek to
dismiss the appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs, learned counsel for
the respondents-defendants and meticulously perused the
material available on record. We have given our anxious
NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB
HC-KAR
consideration to the submissions advanced on both the
sides.
7. The point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and
decree calls for any interference?"
8. The material on record indicates that the
plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.06/2023 seeking the
relief of specific performance of the agreements of sale
dated 10.04.2015, 05.07.2016 and 09.06.2017. In the
said suit, the defendant No.1 filed an application seeking
rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint was filed
beyond the period of limitation. The Trial Court, on
consideration of the material on record and the provisions
of law, proceeded to allow the application and rejected the
plaint on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of
limitation. The plaintiffs sought to enforce the agreements
dated 10.04.2015, 05.07.2016 and 09.06.2017. It is not
in dispute that the defendant No.1, who is the General
NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB
HC-KAR
Power of Attorney holder of the executant-
Sri.Shivaramaiah has issued a legal notice dated
05.07.2017 for cancellation of the agreement on certain
grounds. The receipt of the notice is admitted in the plaint
and hence, the plaintiffs had knowledge with regard to the
cancellation of the agreement in question by the
defendants. The records indicate that the executant-Sri
Shivaramaiaha died on 13.06.2018. The plaintiffs did not
take any steps to enforce his right under the agreements
in question, till 2023. In our considered view, the
intended enforcement of the agreements by the plaintiffs
in the year 2023 after receipt of the notice dated
05.07.2017 for the cancellation of the agreement, is
beyond the period of limitation provided under Article 54
of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Trial Court has rightly
recorded the reason and held that the suit is barred by law
of limitation and allowed the application for rejection of
the plaint. We do not find any error or perversity in the
finding recorded by the Trial Court. The alleged
NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB
HC-KAR
subsequent endorsement on the agreement dated
09.06.2017 is prior to the cancellation of the agreement.
Hence, there is no merit in such a contention.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is
devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
Consequently, the pending interlocutory application stands
disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 7
