Nagaraj B versus Ramaiah B | Order Dated Wed, 16 Oct 2024

Nagaraj B versus Ramaiah B - Order No: 1

Case and Order Information

Case Number: O.S./1449/2023

Parties: Nagaraj B versus Ramaiah B

Order Number: 1

Filing Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2023

Order Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024

Order Description: Orders

Status: HEARING

Stage: HEARING

Download Authenticated True Copy
Your authenticated true copy is ready for download.

Order Content

KABC010059062023

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCCH. 11)

Dated this the 16th day of October 2024

PRESENT: Sri. S. NATARAJ, B. A. L. , LL. B. , VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City

O. S. NO: 1449/2023

PlaintiffS Sri Nagaraj B. , aND others.

[By Sri J. C. K. , Advocate] /Vs/

DefendantS Sri Ramaiah B. , aND others

[For D1 by Sri V. B. S. , Advocate] [For D-2: Exparte] [D-3: Dead] ***

ORDERS ON I. A. NO. 2

The Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order VII rule 11(a), (b) aND (d) of Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of plaint for want of cause of action, valuation of Suit is improper aND incorrect aND Suit is barred by limitation.

  1. The Plaintiffs filed objections.
  2. Heard arguments of counsels for the Plaintiffs aND Defendant No. 1 aND filed Memos with citations.
  3. The following points wouLd. arise for my consideration:
  • (1) Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII rule 11(a), (b) aND (d) CPC for want of cause of action, improper valuation of Suit aND payment of Court fee aND barred by limitation?
  • (2) What order?
    1. My answer to the above points are: Point No. 1: In the Negative Point No. 2: As per final order, for the following:

R E A S O N S

  1. Point No. 1: The 1st Defendant in his affidavit sworn along with application has stated that he is the owner in possession of the Suit schedule property. He purchased the Suit schedule property through registered sale deed dated 06-03-2006 aND continued to be in possession aND paying tax aND perfected title over the Suit property. The Plaintiffs have no right over the Suit schedule properties. They are claiming right based on false aND frivolous grounds. There is no cause of action to file the Suit, it is barred by limitation. The Suit is not properly valued, payment of Court fee is insufficient aND prayed for allowing the application.
  2. The Plaintiffs filed objections that the application is not maintainable. The reasons stated in the application for rejection of plaint is liable to be rejected. While considering the application the averments made in the plaint alone is to be considered aND not the contentions taken by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs have not suppressed any material facts before the Court. The Defendant No. 1

has taken baLd. aND vague contentions against claim of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have properly valued the Suit aND proper Court fee has been paid. The limitation point is a mixed question of law aND facts, requires evidence. The Suit is for declaration aND possession. The Suit is filed well within time aND there is a cause of action aND prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

  1. The counsel for the Defendant No. 1 submitted that the Plaintiff in the plaint sought for relief of declaration aND for possession aND other consequential reliefs. In para 11 of the plaint the cause of action for the Suit arose on 10-03-2006 aND on 6-4-2010, the Suit is filed in the year 2023. The Defendant is in possession of Suit property. Twelve years period was expired in the year 2018 itself aND barred under Article 110 of Limitation Act. The Plaintiffs plaint averments discloses there is no cause of action aND barred by limitation. The declaration are to be sought within 3 years from the date when the cause of action is accrues. The cause of action accrued in the year 2006 when the sale deed was executed in favour of Defendant No. 1. There is a deemed public notice under Sec. 3 of Transfer of Property Act. There is no need for trial of the case aND prayed for rejection of the plaint.
  2. The counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that averments of the plaint discloses cause of action. The Plaintiffs are not aware of the alleged sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 1 until filing of Suit. The Plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed, they were not aware of sale deed. There is no limitation from the dat eof knowledge limitation wouLd. starts. The Court fee is paid as per office objections aND it is properly valued aND paid Court fee. The Suit is for declaration aND possession. The question of limitation is a mixed question of law aND facts required trial. The judgments relied by the

Defendants is not applicable aND prayed for dismissal of I. A. No. 2.

  1. After considering the submissions of both sides it is well settled that while considering the application under Order VII rule 11 CPC the averments made in the plaint alone has to be considered, the contentions taken by the Defendants in the written statement is wholly irrelevant at this stage. The documents referred aND filed along with plaint is to be looked into while considering the application. With this backgrouND, it is necessary to go through the plaint averments whether it suffers from any infirmities provided under Order VII rule 11 CPC. The Plaintiff has filed a Suit for the following reliefs:
  1. Declare that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the Suit schedule property.
  2. Direct the Defendant No. 1 to haND over the vacant possession of the Suit schedule property to the Plaintiffs.
  3. Declare that the sale deed executed by the Defendant No. 2 to 8 in favour of Defendant No. 1 registered as document BLN-1-32830-2005-06, Book-1, Stored in CD No. BLND232 dated 10- 03-2006, registered in the office Sub Registrar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru is null aND void.
  4. Declare that the registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 06-04-2010 executed by first Defendant in favour of M/s Sri Gokulam Chits & Finance Co. , (P)Ltd. , registered as NGB-1-001-2-2010-11 of Book 1, stored in CD No. NGBD47, dated 08-04-2010, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore, Bangalore is null aND void;
  5. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts aND circumstances of the case including cost of this proceeding, in the interest of justice. 12(a). In para 3 of the plaint has stated that the Plaintiffs' father Bathi Lingappa purchased 2 acres 30 guntas of laND in Sy. No. 42 situated at Nagarabhavi Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk through registered sale deed dated 26-08-2970 aND he was in possession of the said property. In para 4 of the plaint regarding nonexecution of any documents by their father in favour of any third parties. In para 5 of the plaint described regarding death of their father Bathi Lingappa on 27- 04-1998 leaving behiND Plaintiffs as legal heirs to succeed the Suit property. 12(b). In para 6 of the plaint described that the Defendants No. 2 to 8 who are the legal heirs of Munipoojappa, they have soLd. the Suit schedule property on the basis of Will executed by their father Munipoojappa in favour of Defendant No. 1 on 10-03-2006. In para 7 stated about the 1st Defendant borrowed a loan from M/s Sri Gokulam chits & Finance Co. , (P) Ltd. , by depositing title deeds of the Suit property. There is specific averments, the Plaintiffs recently came to know about sale deed aND deposit of title deeds, when they applied for encumbrance so as to partition the properties. In para 8 aND 9 averments regarding Defendants colluding each other created sale deed. In para 10 described regarding legal notice dated 17-09-2022 to Defendants questioning the sale deed aND deposit of title deeds aND in para 11 it reads as follows: "The cause of action for the purpose of this Suit arose on 10-03-2006, when the Defendant No. 2 to 8 executed the sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 1, 3 aND on registered Memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 06- 04-2010 executed by first Defendant in favour of M/s. Sri Gokulam Chits & Finance Co. , (P) Ltd. , aND when the Plaintiff No. 1 sent the legal notice dated 17-09-2022 aND on subsequent days within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. "
  1. The 1st Defendant counsel relied upon the judgment in CRP No. 307/2020(IG) dated 14-09-2021 between M/s Metropoli Overseas Limited Vs. Sri H. S. Deekshit aND others. That case is in respect of

partition questioning the alienation made by the father. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by considering Article 110 of Limitation Act heLd. that the Suit is barred by limitation by taking into the consideration that the possession was taken or alienation on the date of sale deed aND Suit is barred by limitation aND rejected the plaint. However, in the present case the Suit is for declaration aND possession based on title. Therefore, the above said judgment on facts is distinguishable. 13(a). AIR 2020 SC 3310 Dahiben V. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali aND others. The Suit filed in that case for cancellation of sale deed aND for declaration that the sale deed is illegal, void ineffective aND not binding on them. Under the circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the Suit filed with delay of over five aND half years after alleged cause of action is barred by limitation. In that case, since the part sale consideration was not paid, therefore the cancellation of sale deed was filed. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed the last cheque was delivered to the Plaintiffs in the year 2009. By considering that it was heLd. that the Suit was filed after expiry of 3 years. However, in the present case facts aND reliefs sought are different. 13(b). AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 2653 Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal. In that case the Suit was filed for cancellation of sale deed on the grouND that Suit property is Wakf property. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the said prayer aND facts heLd. that there is no cause of action for filing the Suit aND it is barred by limitation. The said judgment facts are different with the present case on haND. 13(c). AIR 2011 2011 sc 3590 Katri Hotels Private Limited aND another v. Union of India aND another. The said Suit is for declaration of title, mandatory aND permanent injunction. By considering the evidence of the plaint in that case heLd. that Suit was filed on the basis of cause of action heLd. by 10-08-1990 aND observed that if a Suit is based on multiple cause of action, the period of limitation wouLd. begin to run from the date when the right to first accrues under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. Successive violation of the right will not give rse to freSh. cause aND Suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyoND the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued. The prayed in that case is not for declaration aND possession. On the other haND, it is for declaration aND mandatory aND permanent injunction. The Art. 58 of Limitation Act has no application to the case on haND. 13(d). AIR 2004 SC 1801 Sopan Sukhdeo Sable aND others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner aND others. The plaint was rejected in that case on the grounds that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. It is also not applicable to the case on haND.

  1. The Plaintiff also relied upon the judgment in SLP No. 19465/2021 Eldeco Housing aND Industries Limited Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi aND others. In para 26 of the judgment consider the scope of Order VII rule 11 CPC that no amount of evidence or merits of the controversy can be examined at the stage of decision of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 14(a). (2021) 9 SCC 99 Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat aND others, wherein it is heLd. that rejection of plaint where Suit appears from statement in plaint to be barred by any law. The applicability of bar of respondent judicata cannot be determined at the stage of rejection of plaint. 14(b). (2020) 17 SCC 260 Shakti Bhog Food Industries Limited Vs. Central Bank of India aND another, wherein it is heLd. that under Order VII rule 11(d) CPC Courts duty to scrutinize the averments contained in plaint as a whole on their face value to ascertain bar of limitation aND to take decision. If averments show that Suit is barred by law of limitation or does not disclose any cause of action, Court can exercise power under R. 11 to reject the plaint. 14(c). (2008)12 SCC 661 Kamala aND others Vs. K. T. Eshwara Sa aND others, wherein it is heLd. that, Order 7 R. 11(d) has limited application. For applicability thereof it has to be shown that Suit is barred under any law. Such conclusion has to be drawn from the averments made in the plaint.
  1. On considering the above said judgments aND contentions, on examining the averments made in the plaint on whole the Court has to see whether there is any infirmity in the plaint so as to reject the plaint. The Plaintiffs no doubt have sought for declaration as owners aND possession of Suit property from Defendant No. 1 aND prayer No. (c) aND (d) consequently that the sale deed dated 10-03-2006 deposit of title deeds dated 06-04-2010 are null aND void. In para 11 of the plaint in cause of action column it has stated, the cause of action was arose on 10-03-2006, 06-04-2010 aND on 17-09-2022. However, in para 7 Plaintiffs specifically stated that recently when they applied for encumbrance to partition the properties, they came to know about the alleged transaction. By considering the totality of the averments as a whole, the Plaintiffs sought for declaration aND for possession as the transactions are cloud on their title. Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of Civil Appeal No. 4478/2007 Sopan Rao aND another Vs. Syed Mehmood aND others dated 03-07-2019, wherein the Suit for declaration aND possession was filed, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 9 has observed that the relief of declaration aND possession are sought, Art. 65 of the Limitation Act is applicable. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as follows: "9. …. We have culled out the main prayers made in the Suit hereinabove which clearly indicate that it is a Suit not only for declaration but the Plaintiffs also prayed for possession of the Suit laND. The limitation for filing a Suit for possession on the basis of title is 12 years aND, therefore, the Suit is within limitation. Merely because one of the reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer limitation of 12 years is lost. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the judgment of this Court in [L. C. Hanumanthappa v. ](https: //indiankanoon. org/doc/153942728/) [H. B. Shivakumar1](https: //indiankanoon. org/doc/153942728/) is wholly misplaced. That judgment has no applicability since that case was admittedly only a Suit for declaration aND not a Suit for both declaration aND possession. In a Suit filed for possession based on title the Plaintiff is bouND to prove his title aND pray for a declaration that he is the owner of the Suit laND because his Suit on the basis of title cannot succeed unless he is heLd. to have some title over the laND. However, the main relief is of possession aND, therefore, the Suit will be governed by [Article 65](https: //indiankanoon. org/doc/948485/) of the [Limitation](https: //indiankanoon. org/doc/1317393/) [Act, 1963. ](https: //indiankanoon. org/doc/1317393/) This Article deals with a Suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title aND the limitation is 12 years from the date when possession of the laND becomes adverse to the Plaintiff. . . . . " 15(a). If the above said judgment is applied to the present case, the Suit is not only for declaration, but the Plaintiffs also prayed for possession of Suit property. The limitation for filing a Suit for possession on the basis of title is 12 years. The Plaintiffs merely because sought relief for declaration wouLd. not mean the outer limitation of 12 years is lost. In a Suit filed for possession based on title, the Plaintiff is required to establiSh. his title aND pray for declaration that they are the owners of Suit property. Since the Suit is based on title, cannot succeed unless they have some title over the laND. The main relief is for possession the Suit is bouND by Art. 65 of the Limitation Act, which deals with a Suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title aND the limitation is 12 years from the date when the possession of the laND becomes adverse to the Plaintiffs. Once the title is proved, it is for the Defendants to deny the title only by adverse possession. Therefore, there are disputable facts are involved in the Suit which requires trial aND the Suit is not barred by limitation. Art. 65 of Limitation Act is applicable. There is a cause of action to file a Suit. The Plaintiffs though initially improperly valued the Suit aND paid insufficient Court fee, subsequently as per the office note, they valued the Suit at market value aND paid additional Court fee of Rs. 1, 53, 600/-, as such on reading the plaint on whole, the plaint is not suffers from any infirmities, the application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, answered the point No. 1 in the Negative.
  1. Point No. 2: Hence the following:

O R D E R

  1. A No. 2 filed by the Defendant No. 1 under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) aND (d) CPC is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed aND computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected aND then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 16th day of October 2024).

(S. NATARAJ) VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.

PS: Copyright: eCourtsIndia.com. AI-enhanced; accuracy may vary.

References: Case Number - O.S./1449/2023 | Case Type - O.S. | CNR Number - KABC010059062023 | Complex Name - Prl. City CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE | Court Name - 7-sri GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI-CCH11 VI ADDL. City CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE | Filing Date - 01-03-2023 | Judge Name - 7-Cch11 Vi Addl. City Civil And Sessions Judge | List Date - 2025-06-23 | Order Date - 2024-10-16 | Order Number - 1 | Petitioner Advocates - Janekere.C.Krishna | Petitioner Parties - Nagaraj B Advocate - Janekere.C.Krishna | Respondent Parties - Ramaiah B2) Venkaramanappa 3) Raju 4) Muniyamma 5) Manjamma 6) Mangamma 7) Nagamma 8) Gowramma | Status - Hearing

Document information last updated: Sun, 07 Sep 2025, 12:38 AM IST