Dismissed

M Ramaiah v. T. Ramadas

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2023RSA/831/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenged the rejection of a plaint by the Trial and Appellate Courts. The High Court held the appellant lacked locus standi as he acknowledged the grandfather's GPA and the alienations, and the suit was barred by limitation and illusory cause of action. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and pending applications were dismissed, affirming the rejection of the plaint.

M Ramaiah Vs T. Ramadas — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.831 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M.RAMAIAH S/O LATE MUTHURAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶9

A N NAGARATHNAMMA W/O M RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶10

V R SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O M RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT ATTURU VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560067

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA B HARAVIGOWDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

T. RAMADAS S/O C.THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/O 7/4, NEHRU NAGARA

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶19

RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD

¶20

BENGALURU-560020

¶21

B SRINIVAS S/O BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O NO.1, VENKATARAMANAPPA GARDEN YESHAVANTHAPURA BENGALURU-560022 3. NARAYANA COWHAN S/O EERAPPA COWHAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O NO.258, 7TH MAIN RPC LAYOUT BENGALURU -560043

¶22

SMT.JYOTHSNA SRINIVAS W/O GURUPRASAD AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS C/O SMT SHAMALA SRINIVAS R/O NO.219 ABBE COMPLEX 3RD MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJAPET BENGALURU-560018

¶23

SMT.SANDYA A RAO W/O A N ANANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NO.21, 4TH CROSS CHAMARAJAPET BENGALURU-560018

¶24

A N ANANTHA RAO S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.21, 4TH CROSS

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶26

CHAMARAJAPET BENGALURU-560018

¶27

T.RAMAKRISHNA S/O THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NO.V-58, 4TH CROSS PIPELINE MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003

¶28

K.N.MANJULA W/O K.RAGHUNATHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS C/O MYSORE ROAD PRODUCTS LIMITED STAFF QUARTERS MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560086

¶29

R.P.MANJULA W/O KUMARA D/O R K PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.1703, BEML 5TH STAGE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA BENGALURU-560096

¶30

SMT.ARUNA RAVINDRA W/O DR.K.R.RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT 7TH CROSS LAKSHMI ROAD SHANTHI NAGARA BENGALURU-560046

¶31

DR K R RAVINDRA S/O K RANGANATHACHAR

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶34

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT 7TH CROSS LAKSHMI ROAD SHANTHI NAGARA BENGALURU-560046

¶35

S.GOPALA RAO S/O B.SHANKARA RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT 782, 9TH B MAIN ROAD RPC LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560040

¶36

SMT R.TANUJA

¶37

W/O M L RAGHUNATH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O NO.366, 10TH CROSS MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 086

¶38

SMT.RAMAMANI C/O C R RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O NO.21, 4TH CROSS CHAMARAJAPETE BENGALURU-560018

¶39

K.SUBRAMANYAM S/O K MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/O C/O MYSORE FOOD PRODUCTS LTD., STAFF QUARTERS MAHALAKSHMI PURAM BENGALURU-560086

¶40

INDRAJEETH C.SHIROLE S/O CHANDRSEN

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶42

B SHIROLE AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O DEEPALAKSHMI NO.12052, SHIROLE ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR PUNE MAHARASHTRA-411004

¶43

S.HARISH

¶44

S/O M B SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O NO.110 3RD CROSS MUNESHWARA BLOCK MAHALAKSHMI PURAM BENGALURU-560086

¶45

SMT.SHAYALAJA A MAANAY W/O ASHOK R MAANAY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O NO.2-A ALEXANDAR APARTMENTS, NO.36 ANNEXANDAR STREET RICHMOND TOWN BENGALURU-560025

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SMT.S.SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.M.B.SHANKARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.4, 5, 6, 10, 11 AND 14; SRI.CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.9; SRI.RAGHAVAN M, ADVOCATE FOR R.12; SRI.RAMESH T.R, ADVOCATE FOR R.18; R.8, 15, 16 AND 17 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DATED 07.09.2023 NOTICE TO R.1, 3, 7 AND 13 IS D/W V/O/D 01.12.2023 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT IN R/O R.2)

¶48

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶49

THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.111/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND ORDER DATED 05.09.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.787/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED U/O.7 RULE 11(a)(b) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶50

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD IN ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

The captioned second appeal is filed by the legal heirs of unsuccessful plaintiff, who have questioned the concurrent judgments rendered by both the Courts, wherein the Trial Court while entertaining an application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a), (d) and (c) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint is entertained by the Trial Court and the plaint is rejected and the order of rejection of plaint is confirmed by the Appellate Court. These concurrent judgments are under challenge by the legal heirs of the unsuccessful plaintiff.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶55

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred

¶56

as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶57

The plaintiff has instituted a suit seeking

¶58

following relief;

¶59

"a) Declare that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property and further declare that, any transactions in between the defendants are null and void.

¶60

a(a). To declare that the registered sale deed dated 01.02.1996.

¶61

b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents, servants or G.P.A Holders in whatsoever manner called or anybody claiming through him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

¶62

c) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents, servants or G.P.A Holders in whatsoever manner called or

¶63

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶64

anybody claiming through him from alienating the suit schedule property.

¶65

d) Costs and such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

¶66

The plaintiff in the suit claimed that his grandfather is the absolute owner and on account of family necessity and financial constraints, he was compelled to avail hand loan of Rs.10,000/- from defendant Nos.2 and 3. The plaintiff further pleaded that by way of security, his grandfather has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Narayanachawan, who is defendant No.3. The plaintiff further specifically alleged that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for interest at the rate of 2% per annum. The plaintiff alleges that defendant Nos.2 and 3, taking undue advantage of the GPA, executed nominal sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 by misusing the GPA executed by his grandfather. The plaintiff has further contended that he approached

¶67

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶68

defendants on several occasions and requested to re-convey the property. Plaintiff at para No.8(a) of the plaint has narrated the manner in which the suit property has changed hands. The details of sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 and in favour of defendant No.4 and further alienations made by purchasers is exhaustively narrated at para No.8(a) of the plaint. On these set of pleadings, the present suit is filed.

¶69

Contesting defendants on receipt of summons tendered appearance and filed written statement. The defendants having taken cognizance of the pleadings in the plaint have invoked provisions under Order VII Rule 11(a), (c) and (d). Referring to the admitted set of facts in the plaint, the defendants have sought for rejection of the plaint. The said application is contested by the plaintiff.

¶70

The Trial Court having taken cognizance of the pleadings as well as admitted documents furnished along

¶71

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶72

with plaint has come to conclusion that the present suit filed in the year 2005 questioning the alienations made on 01.02.1996 is barred by limitation as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The Trial Court referring to the cause of action was also not inclined to accept the same and recorded a categorical finding that cause of action indicated in the plaint is found to be illusory and imaginary. Consequently, plaint is rejected.

¶73

The order of rejection is assailed by the plaintiff by filing an appeal in R.A.No.111/2022. The Appellate Court, while re-visiting the pleadings averred in the plaint, has concurred with the reasons and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court while rejecting the plaint. The Appellate Court was also of the view that if grandfather of the plaintiff, who is the absolute owner, has executed a GPA in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and based on the said GPA, if agent has dealt with the properties and the plaintiff's grandfather has not challenged GPA and

¶74

11 -

¶75

NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶76

subsequent alienations, the plaintiff cannot question the

¶77

same by filing the present suit.

¶78

Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant Nos.4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 and learned counsel appearing for defendant No.9.

¶79

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the following judgments.

¶80

i) Shaukathussian Mohammed Patel vs. Khatunben Mohmmedbhai Polara reported in (2019) 10 SCC 226.

¶81

ii) Pawan Kumar vs. Babulal, since deceased through legal representatives and others reported in (2019) 4 SCC 367.

¶82

Before I advert to the reasons assigned by

¶83

the Trial Court and Appellate Court, I deem it fit to cull out

¶84

12 -

¶85

NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶86

the relevant paragraphs of the plaint, which would clinch

¶87

the entire controversy between the parties.

¶88

"2. The Plaintiff submits that, the Plaintiff’s grandfather is the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.39/1 of Attur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bengaluru, which is morefully described hereunder and hereinafter called as suit schedule property.

¶89

3. The Plaintiff submits that, the Plaintiff grandfather in need of money to the family necessities and also for to clear his financial problems, approached the Defendant Nos.2 & 3 and as a security for the loan of Rs.10,000/- was executed general power of attorney in favour of them. In this regard, both parties agreed to settle the matter and defendant Nos.2 & 3 agreed to receive the interest at 2% per month. The defendant Nos.2 & 3 back of Plaintiff and his family members made a nominal sale in favour of 1^st defendant by utilizing the security documents like the general power of attorney in favour of them.

¶90

4. The plaintiff submits that the 1^st defendant as per the forged sale deed in favour of him back of the plaintiff succeeded to got enter his name in revenue records. The plaintiff trust upon the defendant Nos.2 & 3 and after death of his grandfather

¶91

13 -

¶92

NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶93

approached and return the loan and the said persons told that the suit schedule property was sold in favour of 1^st defendant for nominal sale.

¶94

5. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff approached the defendants on several occasions and requested as well demanded to execute the re-conveyance deed in his favour. The 1^st defendant, without any demand agreed to execute the deed and also requested some more time to execute the deed. The sale deeds as well as the consent of the other members of the family. In fact, the Plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He receiving the fruits from the suit schedule property.

6.xxxxx

7.xxxxx

8.xxxx

8(a). It is submitted that defendant Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.4 to 18 have no manner of exclusive right, title over the suit schedule property and with a malafide intention to grab the valuable schedule property, absolutely belongs to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 in collusion with defendant Nos.4 to 18 have made illegal sale transaction in respect of the schedule property. It is submitted that, the defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed

¶99

14 -

¶100

NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶101

dated 01-02-1996 in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6. Defendant No.1 has also executed another sale deed dated: 07-02-1996 in favour of defendant No.4 herein. The defendant No.7 has executed a registered sale deed dated: 26-02-1996 in favour of defendant No.4. The defendant No.1 has further executed a registered sale deed dated: 01-02-1996 in favour of defendant No.14, so also he has executed registered sale deed dated: 26-02-1996 in favour of defendant No.12 and also the defendant No.1 has executed two registered sale deeds dated: 13-02-1996 in favour of the defendant Nos.10 & 11. The defendant No.7 has executed registered sale deed dated: 13-02-1996 in favour of defendant No.18. Again the defendant No.7 has executed a registered sale deed dated: 07-02-1996 in favour of defendant No.14. The defendant No.1 has also executed another registered sale deed dated: 21-03-1996 in favour of defendant No.16. The defendant No.17 has executed registered sale deed dated 30-11-2007 in favour of defendant No.9 and defendant No.8 has executed a registered sale deed dated: 09-12-1999 in favour of defendant No.5 and thus, all the sale transaction entered into between defendants No.1 to 3 and 4 to 18 in respect of suit schedule property are collusive, created and same was not binding on the plaintiff."

¶102

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶103

On reading para No.2, it is admitted by the plaintiff himself that his grandfather is the absolute owner of the property. On examining para No.3, it is clearly evident that plaintiff's grandfather has executed GPA, to which, plaintiff's father has also signed as a witness. The copy of GPA is furnished along with copy of the plaint and this fact is indicated by the Trial Court. Para No.5 of the plaint further clinches entire controversy between the parties. The plaintiff, who has acknowledged the execution of GPA by his grandfather and the sale deed executed by agent, has requested defendants to re-convey the suit property and the same is evident from para No.5. On reading para No.8(a), the plaintiff has elaborately discussed the manner in which the property is meddled by the agent based on the GPA and how the suit property has changed hands and now, subsequent purchasers have acquired right pursuant to the proper sale transactions under registered documents. It can be gathered from the pleadings that defendant No.1 has alienated suit

¶104

16 - NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶105

properties under registered sale deed dated 01.02.1996 in

¶106

favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6.

¶107

It is further evident that defendant No.1 has further alienated a portion in favour of defendant No.4 under registered sale deed dated 07.02.1996. Defendant No.7, in turn, has conveyed the portion purchased by him in favour of defendant No.4 under registered sale deed dated 26.02.1996. Defendant No.1 has also sold portion of property in favour of defendant No.14 under registered sale deed dated 01.02.1996. Further, there are alienations in favour of defendant Nos.12 and 18. On examining para No.8(a) of the plaint, it clearly emerges that subsequent purchasers have further meddled with property and there are several transactions for valuable sale consideration.

¶108

On reading these pleadings found in para Nos.3, 5 and para No.8(a), it is clearly evident that plaintiff has no independent right. It is further clearly evident that plaintiff is well aware of these transactions

¶109

17 - NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶110

and execution of GPA by his grandfather. These transactions pursuant to GPA are of the year 1996. The suit is filed in the year 2005. If these significant details are looked into, I am of the view that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra are not applicable to the present case on hand. If judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff are looked into, it speaks about the case where plaintiffs were not aware of the transactions and they gained knowledge in the year 2013-14 and the Hon'ble Apex Court also found that the plaintiffs, who have instituted a suit, were found to be in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, has no application to the present case on hand.

¶111

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC., makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The Court can exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 of

¶112

18 - NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶113

CPC., at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendants, or before conclusion of the trial. For the purpose of deciding an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (b) of CPC., the averments in the plaint are germane; the plea taken by the defendants in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. Perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC., shows that plaint can be rejected only if it appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Even if the expression of the statement in the plaint is given a liberal meaning, documents filed in the plaint may be looked into but nothing more. It is a trite law that Courts must give a meaningful reading to the plaint and if it is manifestly vexatious or merit less in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Court may exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, the Court while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC., cannot take out submissions in the plaint in isolation but has to conduct a meaningful reading of the plaint. If the Court concludes

¶114

19 -

¶115

NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶116

that suit claims are barred by law, it has no option but to reject the plaint. The power to reject a plaint or to retain it for amendment should be exercised in clear case.

¶117

The plaintiff deserves to be non-suited on two counts. Firstly, the plaintiff has no locus to institute the present suit. At para No.2 of the plaint, he has admitted that suit property is the absolute property of his grandfather. The plaintiff’s grandfather has executed GPA that has led to alienations and the plaintiff's father has signed as a witness to the said GPA. The father of the plaintiff has neither challenged the said GPA nor the sale deed. The plaintiff being grandson has no independent right in the property. If grandfather of the plaintiff has alienated property through GPA, which was never questioned by his grandfather, the plaintiff has no locus to question these alienations. The plaint is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation and also for want of cause of action. On reading para Nos.3 and 5 of the plaint, it is clearly evident that these transactions by his

¶118

20 - NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶119

grandfather are found to be within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Therefore, suit for declaration questioning the sale deeds of the year 1996 by filing a suit in the year 2005 is hopelessly barred by limitation. Even though in absence of an application seeking rejection of the plaint, there is a mandatory duty casts on the Courts to non-suit

¶120

the plaintiff under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. The admitted pleadings in the plaint clearly demonstrate that the present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The cause of action indicated at para No.9 of the plaint cannot be accepted. This aspect is rightly dealt by the Trial Court

¶121

and the Appellate Court, while rejecting the plaint. If plaintiff was aware of GPA and subsequent alienations made by his grandfather in the year 1996, the cause of action indicated at para No.9 is found to be imaginary and illusory and therefore, the plaintiff is liable to be nonsuited even on the ground of cause of action. If these significant details are examined, this Court is of the view that Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint. The Appellate Court has independently assessed entire

¶122

21 - NC: 2023:KHC:44619 RSA No. 831 of 2023

¶123

materials on record and thereafter, has concurred with the

¶124

reasons and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court.

¶125

No substantial question of law arises for

¶126

consideration.

¶127

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶128

Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.

¶129

Sd/JUDGE

¶130

NBM

¶131

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

M Ramaiah v. T. Ramadas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Ramaiah v. T. Ramadas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.M.N Madhusudhan Vs General Secretary

Sri G C Somashekaraiah Vs Sri G B Ganganarayanappa

Sri.Haleshappa Vs Sri.Mallappa

Smt Puttamma, Vs Kempamma Dead by Lrs Prakash

G M Siddalingaiah Vs Kariyappa

H v Padmanaba Gowda Vs Muniyamma