[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri D U Mallikarjuna vs Smt Vinutha C R on 9 March, 2026

                                                -1-
                                                       NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB
                                                         R.F.A. No.2637/2025


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                            DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                           PRESENT
                          THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                                                AND
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                        REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2637/2025 (DEC/INJ)


                   BETWEEN:

                   SHRI. D.U. MALLIKARJUNA
Digitally signed   AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
by ARSHIFA         S/O SHRI D.S. UMAPATHY
BAHAR KHANAM       RESIDING AT NO.286, 38TH CROSS
Location: HIGH     8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
COURT OF           BENGALURU-560050.
KARNATAKA
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. ADV., FOR
                      SMT. SONU S, ADV.,)

                   AND:

                   1.    SMT. VINUTHA C.R.
                         W/O UDAY K.M.
                         AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
                         RESIDING AT NO.4/204
                         VISHAL PALACE, 1ST CROSS
                         MALLESHWARAM
                         BENGALURU-560003.

                   2.    SHRI. UDAY K.M.
                         AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
                         S/O SRI. MADAIAH
                         RESIDING AT NO.4/204
                         VISHAL PALACE
                         1ST CROSS
                            -2-
                                     NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB
                                      R.F.A. No.2637/2025


HC-KAR




    MALLESHWARAM
    BENGALURU-560003.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADV., FOR
SRI/SMT. SHERVIL ADAPPA, ADV., FOR C/RESPONDENT)

     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF
CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
O.S.1225/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGALORE. HEARD THE APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 01.04.2025, PASSED
IN O.S.1225/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BANGALORE RURAL AND DECREE THE
SUIT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
27.02.2026,  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 01.07.2025

passed in O.S.No.1225/2022 by the Court of VII Additional

NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB

HC-KAR

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bengaluru Rural District,

Bengaluru (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 plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1225/2022

seeking declaration that the gift deed dated 12.12.2016 is

a fraudulent document, declaration that any transaction in

regard to the suit schedule property is not binding on the

plaintiffs and other reliefs. In the said suit, the defendant

No.2 filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on

the ground that the plaint was filed beyond the period of

limitation. The Trial Court, on consideration of the plaint

averments, submissions 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.

NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB

HC-KAR

4. Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior counsel

appearing for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the Trial

Court has committed a grave error in allowing the

application filed by the defendant No.2, without

appreciating the material on record in its proper

perspective. It is submitted that the gift deed dated

12.12.2016 was executed by fraudulent means by the

defendants. It is further submitted that the signature of

the plaintiff on the gift deed dated 12.12.2016 was

obtained through deception, while simultaneously

obtaining signatures on a cancellation agreement. It is

also submitted that the Trial Court has erroneously

considered the period of limitation to begin from

12.12.2016 i.e. the date of the execution of the gift deed,

whereas the limitation ought to begin from the date the

plaintiff was aware of the said gift deed i.e on 05.05.2022.

It is contended that the plaintiff is a stranger to the family

of the defendants, which creates suspicion with regard to

the gift deed dated 12.12.2016 and the same is required

NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB

HC-KAR

to be looked into by the Trial Court during the trial. It is

further contended that the issue with regard to the

limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and requires

evidence. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, Sri.Bipin Hegde, learned counsel

appearing for Sri.Shervil Adappa, learned counsel for the

respondents supports the impugned order of the Trial

Court and submits that the Trial Court has rightly

appreciated the law on the point and proceeded to reject

the plaint on the ground of limitation. Hence, he seeks to

dismiss the appeal.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, learned counsel for the

respondents-defendants and meticulously perused the

material available on record. We have given our anxious

consideration to the submissions advanced on both the

sides.

NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB

HC-KAR

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

plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.1225/2022 seeking

declaration that the gift deed dated 12.12.2006 is

obtained by fraudulent means, declaration that

transactions undertaken by the defendants with respect to

the suit schedule property is not binding on the plaintiff

and also the relief of mandatory and prohibitory injunction

against the defendants. In the said suit, the defendant

No.2 filed an application seeking rejection of plaint on the

ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial

Court, on considering the plaint averments and the

provisions of law, proceeded to allow the application and

reject the plaint.

9. The contention of the learned Senior counsel

for the appellant-plaintiff is that the period of limitation

NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB

HC-KAR

ought to start from the date of discovery of the fraud and

not from the date of execution of the gift deed and it is a

mixed question of law and fact requiring trial. The said

contention was also raised before the Trial Court and was

rightly rejected, as the gift deed is a registered document

which was signed by the plaintiff. A mere assertion that

he was unaware of the said gift deed cannot justify the

delay in filing the suit. The Trial Court has rightly placed

reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of DILBOO V DHANRAJ AND OTHERS1,

wherein it was held that whenever a document is

registered, the date of registration would become the date

of deemed knowledge.

10. It would also be useful to refer to the decision

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SURAJ LAMP

& INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. (2) V. STATE OF HARYANA2,

wherein it was held as under:

(2000) 7 SCC 702

(2012) 1 SCC 656

NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB

HC-KAR

15. In the earlier order dated 15-5-2009 [(2009) 7 SCC 363 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 126] , the objects and benefits of registration were explained and we extract them for ready reference: (SCC p. 367, paras 15-18) "15...

16....

17..........Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed.

18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents.

Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified."

NC: 2026:KHC:14005-DB

HC-KAR

11. The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that the

registration of a document serves as a deemed and

constructive notice, which can be ascertained by

undertaking due diligence. In the instant case, the

contention of the plaintiff that he was unaware of the gift

deed cannot be accepted purely because the said gift deed

is a registered document, which could have been

ascertained by due diligence. Admittedly, the registered

gift deed is dated 12.12.2016 and the suit filed by the