Dismissed

K L Ravindranatha Reddy v. Smt Deveeramma K N

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023CRP/13/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by defendants challenging the rejection of their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a title suit, holding that lack of registration of a prior sale certificate and boundary discrepancies require full trial.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to conclude procedure within one year.

K L Ravindranatha Reddy Vs Smt Deveeramma K N — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43994 CRP No. 13 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.13 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K.L. RAVINDRANATHA REDDY S/O. LATE LAXMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KURUMARADIKERE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DIST., CHITRADURGA-577524.

¶9

SMT. K. YASHODAMMA W/O. RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SARASWATHI PURAM, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. VINUTHA W/O. K.L. RAVINDRANATHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KURUMARADIKERE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DIST., CHITRADURGA-577524.

¶12

K.R. PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY S/O. K.L. RAVINDRANATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDENT OF KURUMARADIKERE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DIST., CHITRADURGA-577524.

¶13

SMT. P.R. KAVITHA W/O. K.R. PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KURUMARADIKERE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DIST.,

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43994 CRP No. 13 of 2022

¶15

CHITRADURGA-577524.

¶16

SREELAKSHMI D/O. K.R. PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER K.R.PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY RESIDENT OF KURUMARADIKERE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DIST., CHITRADURGA-577524.

¶17

K.R. SHRIDHARA REDDY S/O K.L. RAVINDRANATHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KURUMARADIKERE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DIST., CHITRADURGA-577524.

¶18

SMT. SHILPA M., W/O. K.R. SHRIDHARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KURUMARADIKERE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DIST., CHITRADURGA-577524.

¶19

SMT. K.L. SUDHA W/O. D.R. JAYASHEELA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT SARASWATHI PURAM, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶20

D.J. MANJUNATHA REDDY S/O. D.R.JAYASHEELA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT SARASWATHI PURAM, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶21

S. NARAYANA REDDY S/O. R. SEETHARAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O. ISHWARYA PROVISION STORES, NEAR BHUVANESHWARI CIRCLE, MUNICIPAL COLONY, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:43994 CRP No. 13 of 2022

¶23

¶24

SMT. G.M. SUPRITHA W/O. S. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O. ISHWARYA PROVISION STORES, NEAR BHUVANESHWARI CIRCLE, MUNICIPAL COLONY, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶25

…PETITIONERS

¶26

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA R SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SMT. DEVEERAMMA K.N. D/O. LATE GOWDARA NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/O. 5^TH BLOCK, KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA-577501

¶29

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.79/3, KIRANA, G.K.GARDEN, THAMATAKAL, CHITRADURGA-577502.

¶30

…RESPONDENT

¶31

(BY SRI. J.S. SOMASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT)

¶32

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2021 PASSED ON IA No.2 IN OS No.91/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHITRADURGA, REJECTING THE IA No.II FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:43994 CRP No. 13 of 2022

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petitioners have challenged an order dated 12.08.2021 passed in O.S.No.91/2020 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga, by which, an application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was rejected.

¶38

The suit in O.S.No.91/2020 was filed for the following reliefs:

¶39

"a) Decree that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property;

¶40

b) Order to demolish the illegal construction over the suit schedule property by way of mandatory injunction;

¶41

c) Grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendants there men, agents, servants etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property;

¶42

d) For grant compensation, costs and such other relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:43994 CRP No. 13 of 2022

¶45

The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was

¶46

earlier conveyed to Mr. T.Nagappa by the Town Municipal Council, Chitradurga, in terms of a sale certificate dated 26.08.1964. The plaintiff claimed that T.Nagappa conveyed the suit property to her on 25.01.1973 and that the defendants having no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, were attempting to interfere with her possession and therefore, sought the reliefs mentioned above.

¶47

The defendants contested the suit and denied the existence of suit property and also contended that the suit property was not sold by the Town Municipal Council, Chitradurga to T.Nagappa. Therefore, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was fraudulent. Along with the written statement, the defendants also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint primarily on two grounds, namely:

¶48

1) that the Suit property did not exist,

¶49

as the boundaries were not in respect of the property bearing site No.114, but was in respect of different property.

¶50

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43994 CRP No. 13 of 2022

¶51

2) that the sale certificate allegedly executed by Town Municipal Council, Chitradurga, in favour of T.Nagappa was not registered in accordance with law and therefore inadmissible.

¶52

This application was opposed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court after considering the contentions urged by the defendants held that the contentions urged by the defendants cannot be considered at an interlocutory stage, but have to be tested only after trial in the suit and therefore rejected the application in terms of the impugned order.

¶53

Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have filed this revision petition.

¶54

The learned counsel for the defendants vehemently contended that the sale certificate allegedly executed by the Town Municipal Council, Chitradurga in favour of T.Nagappa is not registered in accordance with law and thus, the plaintiff has no title to the property in question and on that ground alone, the suit was liable to be rejected. He further contends that a perusal of the boundaries

¶55

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:43994 CRP No. 13 of 2022

¶57

mentioned in the sale deed did not correspond with the boundaries mentioned in the suit, but it related to some other property and therefore, on this ground too, the plaint was liable to be rejected. The learned counsel took the Court through Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and contended that the document is per se not admissible, and therefore, the suit based on such a document is not maintainable.

¶58

The learned counsel for the respondent has remained absent, though he entered caveat.

¶59

A perusal of the reliefs sought in the plaint as extracted above, indicate that the plaintiff was claiming title

¶60

to the suit property in terms of a sale deed dated 11.04.1973. She also claimed that her predecessor in title was allotted suit property and a sale certificate was executed by Town Municipal Council, Chitradurga in his favour. Therefore, it was for the plaintiff to not only establish her title, but also the title of her predecessor.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:43994 CRP No. 13 of 2022

¶63

9. The contentions of the defendants that the sale

¶64

certificate executed in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiff was not registered, cannot be a ground to reject the plaint, as the suit is based on some cause of action. The presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872, in respect of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 11.04.1973 cannot be ignored.

¶65

In that view of the matter, the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that the sale certificate dated 26.08.1964 was not registered in accordance with law.

¶66

In so far as the other contention that the suit property does not exist, as the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 11.04.1973 and the suit do not correspond to the property bearing No.114, but relates to some other property, is a question that will have to be adjudicated upon by the Trial Court after a full fledged trial.

¶67

Hence, there is no error committed by the Trial

¶68

Court in rejecting the application filed by the defendants warranting interference by this Court.

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC:43994 CRP No. 13 of 2022

¶70

¶71

Hence, this petition lacks merit and is

¶72

dismissed.

¶73

The Trial Court is directed to conclude the

¶74

procedure as early as possible within one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

K L Ravindranatha Reddy v. Smt Deveeramma K N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K L Ravindranatha Reddy v. Smt Deveeramma K N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Krishnamurthy Subramanya Vs Smt Yogeetha B S

G C Shanthaveerappa Vs State of Karnataka

Lt Col.Piyush Kumar Sanwal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sr. Anto Virgin Mary Vs Sri G P Venkatachalapathi

Smt Suguna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.William Anoop Nicodemus Vs Ms.Sanghamitra Das