Dismissed

Smt Manjuala Reddy v. Smt Rathnamma

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2023CRP/499/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court held that questions regarding title and survey numbers are factual issues requiring a full trial and cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed, and the impugned order of the Trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was affirmed.

Smt Manjuala Reddy Vs Smt Rathnamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 499 OF 2023 (IO)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MANJUALA REDDY W/O Y.C.REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.1010, 26^TH MAIN, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA,

¶8

BENGALURU - 560041.

¶9

SRI. J. PRATHAPAREDDY S/O J. THIMMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RES AT NO.75, 16^TH CROSS, 11^TH MAIN ROAD, H.S.R. LAYOUT, 6^TH SECTOR,

¶10

BENGALURU - 560102.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. N. VIVEKANADA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RES AT NO.309, PRESTIGE GREENWOODS, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560093.

¶13

SRI. Y.C. SANDEEP REDDY S/O Y.C. RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RES AT NO.1010, 26^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560041.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. BHANUPRAKASH V.G., ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA ALIAS NARAYANNIAH ALIAS H.R. NARAYANAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, RES AT NO.115, KRISHNA REDDY BUILDING, BEHIND PATALAMMA TEMPLE, INDHIRAGANDHI CIRCLE, SARAKKI, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560078 GPA HOLDER SRI. SATHAYNARAYANA REDDY, S/O RAMAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RES AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD, CARMEL RAM POST, BENGALURU – 560035

¶19

SMT. SUNANDAMMA, W/O LATE MATTAPPA M AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶20

SRI. YEDUKUMAR W/O LATE MATTAPPA M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶21

SMT. DHANALASKHMI W/O LATE MATTAPPA M., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶22

SMT. TULASI W/O LATE MATTAPPA M AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶23

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 RESIDING AT NO.190, 13^TH CROSS, MUNESWARA TEMPLE ROAD, KODIHALLI, BENGALURU - 560008.

¶24

SRI. N. MUNIREDDY S/O LATE NARASIMHARADDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RES AT NO.192, OPPOSITE TO VEERABADRA SWAMY TEMPLE, KODIHALLI MAIN ROAD,

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶26

KODIHALLI, HALSOOR POST, BENGALURU – 560008

¶27

SRI. T. KRISHNAPPA S/O THOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RES AT NO. 64, AKASH NAGAR B. NARAYANAPURA BENGALURU - 560016.

¶28

SRI. VENUGOPAL S/O PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RES AT NO.246, 7^TH CROSS, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE, KODIHALLI, BENGALURU – 560008

¶29

SMT. HEMAVATHI W/O PURUSHOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RES AT NO.80/22, 7^TH CROSS, SADDUGUNTEPALYA, BENGALURU – 560029

¶30

SRI. M. MOHAN S/O LATE G. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RES AT NO. 184, 7^TH CROSS, BENGALURU – 560008

¶31

SRI. G. AMEER S/O GAFAAR SAB, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RES AT NO.46/12, 17, 18^TH CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, RAJEEV GANDHINAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560068

¶32

SRI. G. NISAAR S/O GAFAAR SAB, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RES AT NO.46/9, 1^ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, RAJEEV GANDHINAGAR

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶34

BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560068

¶35

SMT. PAASKAL HERALD KUTHINA D/O REMAND KUTHINA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RES AT FOSSOYONIST COMMUNITY, CARMEL RAM POST, BENGALURU – 560035

¶36

SMT. G. ANUPAMA W/O S. PRABHAKARA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RES AT GONIGATTAPURA VILLAGE NERIGAPOST, SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU.

¶37

SRI. HOUSALAPRASADATRIPATI S/O LATE PRABHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶38

SMT. ARUNA TRIPATI W/O HOUSALAPRASADATRIPATI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶39

RESPONDENT NO.14 TO 15 ARE RES AT NO.20/6, 4^TH CROSS SUDHAMANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027.

¶40

M/S FEATHER LITE LIMITED OFFICE AT NO.16/A, MILLERS ROAD, K.K.M.P. BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560052 REPRESENTATION BY ITS PARTNER 20(a) JAVAHAR GOPAL 20(b) MANOHAR GOPAL

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETHAN B.C., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶43

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN

¶44

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶45

O.S.NO.1232/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.IV FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶46

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

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petitioners have filed this petition challenging an order dated 01.07.2023 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in O.S.No.1232/2019 by which, an application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC was rejected.

¶49

The respondent No.1 herein filed

¶50

O.S.No.1232/2019 for declaration of her title to the suit property and for consequential relief namely, declaration that the sale deeds executed interse between the defendants was not binding upon her. The suit was in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.31/16 of Gattahalli village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, which was renumbered as Sy.No.218 and bifurcated as Sy.Nos.218/1, 218/2 and

¶51

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶52

218/3 in all measuring 5 acres. Respondent No.1 claimed that the aforesaid property was one amongst many other properties that were allotted to the share of her husband - Narayanappa and Venkatappa at a partition, which was reported in R.A.No.29/1947-48. She contended that her husband/Narayanappa and Venkatappa had alienated the land bearing Sy.No.31/14, while the land bearing Sy.No.31/16, which was renumbered as Sy.No.218 and bifurcated as Sy.Nos.218/1, 218/2, 218/3 was not alienated or encumbered in favour of any person. She therefore, contended that upon demise of her husband, she was entitled to a share in the suit property. She claimed that Mattappa and his family members, claiming that they had title in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.31/16 had brought about various sale deeds to which neither she nor Venkatappa were parties and therefore, claimed that all those deeds executed by Mattappa and his family members and consequent sale deeds are not binding upon her.

¶53

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶54

The suit was contested by the petitioners herein, who also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint primarily contending that (i) the plaintiff had filed a false and frivolous suit; (ii) that two sale deeds were executed by the husband of the plaintiff/Narayanappa and Venkatappa on 21.05.1953 and on verification of the boundaries, it was clear that the husband of the plaintiff along with his mother sold 5 acres of the land and similarly, Venkatappa sold 5 acres of land. Therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file a suit for declaration of her title in respect of Sy.No.31/16, as what was allotted to the share of Venkatappa and husband of plaintiff was 10 acres in Sy.Nos.31/14 and 31/16 and since they had sold 10 acres of land, they do not have any subsisting right, title and interest in the land bearing Sy.No.31/16; (iii) that suit is filed after 78 years from the date of sale of the suit schedule property from the husband of plaintiff; (iv) that various transactions were brought about from the year 1953 and onwards and therefore, the suit is barred by the

¶55

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶57

law of limitation; (v) that the plaint is a result of clever drafting creating an illusory cause of action.

¶58

This application was contested by the

¶59

plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, who contended that the land bearing Sy.No.31/16, which was later renumbered as Sy.No.218 and bifurcated as Sy.Nos.218/1, 218/2, 218/3 was never encumbered to any person more particularly, in favour of Mattappa and his family members and therefore, any sale brought about by Mattappa and his family members is nonest and not binding upon the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein is entitled to seek appropriate title and consequent declaration that the sale deed executed by Mattappa and his family members and the consequential sale deeds are all null and void and not binding upon her. It was contended that the contentions urged by the petitioners herein were all questions of fact, which have to be adjudicated after trial and not in an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC. The Trial Court after considering the

¶60

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶61

contentions as well as the averments of the plaint, held that the contentions urged by the petitioners herein were pure questions of fact, which have to be adjudicated after a trial and not at an interlocutory stage by entertaining the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.

¶62

Being aggrieved by the said order, the

¶63

petitioners are before this Court.

¶64

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even as per the case of plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, her husband and her brother-in-law Venkatappa were jointly allotted 5 acres in Sy.No.31/14 and 5 acres in Sy.No.31/16. He submitted that both of them had conveyed 5 acres along with their mother in the year 1953. He contended that in both the sale deeds, the survey number was mentioned as Sy.No.31/14. Therefore, it has to be construed that both of them had disposed off the land bearing Sy.Nos.31/14 and 31/16 and thus, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is not entitled to file a suit for partition that too, after nearly 70

¶65

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶66

years after encumbering the suit property. He submitted that the boundaries mentioned in both the sale deeds do not tally thereby giving clear impression that what was sold was two different portions of the land namely, Sy.Nos.31/14 and 31/16. He thus contends that the Trial Court could not have entertained such a mischievous plaint. He also contends that there are several transactions which are brought about and the petitioners herein have purchased the portion of the land bearing Sy.No.31/14 and that the petitioners are unnecessarily roped into the suit.

¶67

Per contra, the learned Senior counsel for plaintiff/respondent No.1 submits that the petitioners had deliberately suppressed various proceedings between the parties in respect of suit schedule property. She contends that revenue proceedings was initiated relating to the revenue records before the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, which finally ended up before this Court in W.P.No.40957/2019, where the petitioner herein

¶68

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶69

filed a memo stating that they have no right, title and interest over the land bearing Sy.No.31/16 and filed a memo restricting their title to the land bearing Sy.No.31/14, measuring 4 acres and categorically declared that they have no right or claim over the land bearing Sy.No.31/16 of Gattahalli village. She therefore, contends that when the petitioners do not have any interest in the land bearing Sy.No.31/16, they cannot file application for rejection of the plaint which is filed in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.31/16. She also contends that this judgment of the learned Single Judge was carried in an appeal by the petitioners herein and the Division Bench, while considering the contentions, held,

¶70

"Though the learned counsel for the present appellants filed memo to the effect that they have no right, title and interest in Sy.No.31/16 and specifically stated that they have purchased 4-00 acres of land in Old Sy.No.31/4 New No.218 of Gattahalli Village and having possession of the said land."

¶71

The learned Single Judge also held as follows:-

¶72

12 -

¶73

NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶74

" 12. It is also not in dispute that the present appellants also filed written statement disputing the title of the present respondent No.5 and the matter has to be adjudicated before the competent Civil Court. When there are disputed facts with regard to survey numbers, extents and two persons claiming their title in respect of Sy.Nos.31/16 and 31/14, according to the appellants, both the Survey numbers are sold by the husband of the 5th respondent and his brother and the appellants have purchased 4-00 acres of land in Sy.No.31/14 new No.218/2 of Gattahalli Village and taken possession, it is the 5th respondent who already filed the original suit before the Competent civil Court to adjudicate her right. It is also not disputed that the Assistant Commissioner by the order dated 28.04.2017 filed by the 5th respondent in respect of Sy.No.31/14, measuring 5-00 acres of Gattahalli Village, under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964 and for the reasons, it is stated that Sy.No.31/16 has been assigned new Sy.No.218 measuring 5-00 acres situated at Gattahalli Village, very curiously in page 18 of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is stated as under;

¶75

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶76

"Para 18 - Further, even the order of the ADLR in assigning the new survey Nos.218/1, 2 and 3 to the old Sy.No.31/14 had not been questioned by the petitioner before appropriate forum and hence, the contention of the petitioner that the property in old Sy.No.31/16 has been assigned new survey No.218 is not acceptable"

¶77

Learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1

¶78

also referred to the observations made by Division Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered by W.A. No.1024/2021, and the same reads as follows:

¶79

"13. xxx It is for her to establish her title in respect of the property in question, thereby where there are disputed facts in respect of survey numbers and the sale deeds. The Deputy Commissioner has no right to decide title between the parties. It is competent civil court which is alone has jurisdiction to decide the title between the parties. Therefore, the learned single Judge is not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as the Deputy Commissioner has no right to decide title between the parties. Therefore, the learned single Judge ought to have held that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated

¶80

14 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶81

18.06.2019 in Revision Petition No.513/2017 Annexure 'F' would be subject to the result of the suit pending between the parties and the petitioner has to delegate to adjudicate the suit in O.S. No.1232/2019, thereby the learned single Judge is not setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. "

¶82

She also contended that in respect of another proceeding, which was before this Court in W.P. No.9683/2022 connected with W.P. No.20772/2022, a coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 16.01.2023 observed as follows :

¶83

"9. This Court is also of the considered opinion that if the names of the petitioners herein are not already entered in the land records, then they will have to await the result of the suit in O.S. No.1232/2019. They shall not be permitted to approach the revenue authorities to have their names entered in the land records on the strength of the respective sale deeds that were executed way back in the years 2013 and 2019."

¶84

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶85

She contended that the respondent No.1 - Smt. Rathnamma represented by Sri Sathyanarayanareddy had already filed a suit in O.S. No.1232/2019 for declaration that she is the absolute owner of land measuring 05 Acres in Sy. No.31/16 and that a coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the said order dated 16.01.2023, had directed the parties to work out their rights in so far as the land in Sy. No.31/16 is concerned in the pending suit i.e., O.S. No.1232/2019. She, therefore, contends that the petitioners were bound to disclose all these proceedings in the application filed by them before the Trial Court for rejection of the plaint. She also contends that even before this Court, the petitioners had deliberately suppressed the aforesaid proceedings. She further contends that notwithstanding the above, the question which arises for consideration is whether the husband of respondent No.1 and her brother-in-law had encumbered or alienated the land bearing Sy. No.31/16 or not, arose for consideration before the Civil Court. She contends that in view of the memo filed by the petitioners that they did not have any

¶86

16 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶87

right, title or interest in the land bearing Sy. No.31/16, the petitioners cannot seek for rejection of the plaint. She therefore contends that at any rate, the plaint cannot be rejected on the grounds urged by the petitioners.

¶88

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶89

It is now well settled that a plaint can be rejected if it does not disclose a clear cause of action or that it is expressly barred by the provisions of any law and for doing so, the Court is bound to look into the averments of the plaint alone. It is also well settled that the Court should not hesitate to shoot down a suit based on an illusory cause of action or due to clever drafting resulting in a mirage of a cause of action. In the present case, the respondent No.1 claimed that her husband and her brother-in-law were entitled to land in Sy Nos.31/14 and 31/16 in terms of a compromise decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Mysore in R.A. No.29/1947-48.

¶90

17 - NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶91

Therefore, the antecedent title of the husband of the respondent No.1 is not much in doubt. The only question that needs to be considered by the Trial Court is whether the husband of the respondent No.1 and her brother-inlaw had ever sold the land bearing Sy. No.31/16 that fell to their share. The other question that may arise for consideration is whether the sale deed brought about by the husband of respondent No.1 and her brother-in-law in the year 1953 related to the land in Sy. No.31/14 or Sy. No.31/16 or only in respect of Sy. No.31/14. The petitioners herein claimed title in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.31/14 and therefore, the question whether the land purchased by them is the land bearing Sy. No.31/14 or Sy. No.31/16 is a matter that has to be decided by the Trial Court after a full-fledged trial and this certainly cannot be adjudicated or decided in an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There is no error committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application in

¶92

NC: 2023:KHC:43408 CRP No. 499 of 2023

¶93

18 -

¶94

I.A. No.IV filed by the petitioners herein / defendant

¶95

Nos.16 to 19 warranting interference by this Court.

¶96

Accordingly, this petition lacks merit and is

¶97

dismissed.

¶98

The pending I.A, if any, stands disposed off.

¶99

Sd/JUDGE

¶100

PMR - para 1 to 8 SMA - para No.9 till the end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Smt Manjuala Reddy v. Smt Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manjuala Reddy v. Smt Rathnamma

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

Sandhya Realtors Private Limited Vs the State by Marathalli Police Station

Smt. P.C. Rukmani Vs Namera K. Devaiah

Sri. Mallikarjunaiah Vs Smt. S.Chandrakala

Smt. Arpeetha Vs Panchayathi Development Officer

T.N. Prakash Vs Range Forest Officer

Sri N Rajendran Vs Sri N Ramesh Dead by Lrs