Dismissed

Smt. Susilabi W/O. Veerabadrayya Bannimath Deceased Lrs as Below v. Nagabhushan S/O. Shekharappa Meti

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2024CRP/100044/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision petition challenging rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. Court held that while non-production of documents like relinquishment deeds can be grounds for rejection, it is premature to do so when the suit is at the stage of recording evidence and plaintiff has opportunity to produce them.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to file fresh application if plaintiff fails to produce suit documents after completion of his evidence.

Smt. Susilabi W/O. Veerabadrayya Bannimath Deceased Lrs… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9175 CRP No. 100044 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100044 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUSILABI W/O. VEERABADRAYYABANNIMATH DECEASED LRS AS BELOW.

¶10

MAHESH S/O. VEERABADRAYYA BANNIMATH, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 3^RD CROSS, HOSUR, HUBBALLI – 580 021.

¶11

RAJESH S/O. VEERABADRAYYA @ VEERESH BANNIMATH, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: 3^RD CROSS, HOSUR, HUBLI – 580 021.

¶12

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. JYOTI C. GAVIMATH W/O. CHIDANAND GAVIMATH AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O: PLOT NO. 2033, SECTOR NO. 9, MAHANTESH NAGAR M.M. EXTEN, BELAGAUM – 590 016.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH & UMESH P. HAKKARKI, ADVOCATES)

¶16

AND:

¶17

NAGABHUSHAN S/O. SHEKHARAPPA METI,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9175 CRP No. 100044 of 2022

¶19

AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BETGERI, TALUK: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL- 583 213.

¶20

SURESH S/O. SHEKHARAPPA METI, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O: BETGERI, TALUK: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL- 583 213.

¶21

SRIKANTH S/O. SHEKHARAPPA METI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BETGERI, TALUK: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL- 583 213.

¶22

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, ALWANDI CIRCLE,

¶23

TALUK AND DISTRICT – KOPPAL – 583 213.

¶24

THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR ALWANDI, TALUK AND DISTRICT- KOPPAL – 583 213.

¶25

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TALUK AND DISTRICT KOPPAL – 583 213.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI S.N.BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)

¶28

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908,

¶29

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2020 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE KOPPAL IN OS NO.17/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.8 BY REJECTING THE PLAINT AND ETC.,

¶30

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

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9175 CRP No. 100044 of 2022

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This petition is filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2020 passed on I.A. No.VIII filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC in O.S. No.17/2016. The above suit in O.S. No.17/2016 is filed by the plaintiff – respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule properties.

¶34

The petitioner herein filed the above application in I.A. No.VIII under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint contending that the plaint averments do not disclose the cause of action. It is also contended that as per the averments made in the plait, the claim made by the plaintiff under the Tenancy Law before the Tribunal has been rejected, which has not been challenged; as such the

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9175 CRP No. 100044 of 2022

¶36

suit is barred by limitation. Thus, on these two counts, the application is filed.

¶37

Objection to the said application came to be filed denying the averments made in the application and contending that the basis of the suit of the plaintiff is long standing possession and cultivation of the suit schedule property by the grand-father and the father of the plaintiff for over 50 years and based on the relinquishment made by the grand father in favour of the father of the plaintiff. Thus, unless evidence in this regard is led, the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) is not maintainable.

¶38

The Trial Court accepting the contention raised by the plaintiff and adverting to the principles governing the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners - legal representatives of defendant No.1 are before this Court.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9175 CRP No. 100044 of 2022

¶41

petition, specifically adverting to the averments made in paragraph Nos.3 & 9 of the plaint submits that, the plaint

¶42

ought to have been rejected on two counts; firstly, the averment made in the entire plaint would not make out a specific cause of action except creating a illusory one, as the plaintiff has based his suit on a purported relinquishment deed allegedly executed by his grand father in favour of his father as averred in paragraph No.3 and the said document not having been produced along with the plaint or during the evidence, is required to be rejected. Secondly, according to the plaint, the claim made before the Land Tribunal having been rejected on 30.11.2001 and the remedy available for him to have challenge the said order instead of filing the suit. Thus, on these two counts, he submits that the plaint ought to have been rejected. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs.

¶43

T.V. Satyapal and another¹ and also in the case of

¶44

1 (1977) 4 SCC 467

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9175 CRP No. 100044 of 2022

¶46

Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society represented by its Chairman Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, represented by its Chairperson / Manging Trustee² .

¶47

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying upon several judgments produced along with the memo, dated 04.07.2024 contends that, the cause of action averred in the plaint is based on long standing cultivation by the plaintiff, his father and grand father and the suit is still at the stage of recording evidence and the evidence of the plaintiff is not completed, he still has an opportunity to produce the suit documents, as such it is premature to conclude that the plaintiff has not produced the suit documents. Thus, he submits that, the reliance placed on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the above judgments of the Apex Court are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of

¶48

this case. Thus, he seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶49

2 (2012) 8 SCC 706

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9175 CRP No. 100044 of 2022

¶51

Heard. Perused the records.

¶52

The principles governing consideration of the

¶53

application for rejection of the plaint is well settled. It is only the plaint averment and the plaint documents, which

¶54

is required to be considered and not the defense statement. There is a considerable force in the submission being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, since plaintiff has based his suit on a purported relinquishment deed allegedly executed by his grand father in favour of his father and no particulars of the said documents is reflected in the plaint and in the light of the provisions of the Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC, which mandates the production of the suit documents, averments are to be made in the plaint regarding availability and the possession of the said documents, which is to be borne in mind while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

¶55

The Apex Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9175 CRP No. 100044 of 2022

¶57

represented by its Chairman (supra) dealing with a suit

¶58

for specific performance, in which registered power of attorney not having been produced, held that nonproduction of the suit documents is the case for consideration for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

¶59

However, in view of the admitted fact that the present suit is at the stage of recording evidence of the plaintiff, which is yet to be completed and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff that the plaintiff is still has an opportunity to produce the such suit documents, this Court is of the considered view that, it is too early at this juncture to reject the plaint for non-production of the suit documents.

¶60

It is needless to state that the application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC can be filed at any stage, since the suit is still at the stage of recording evidence of the plaintiff, reserving liberty to

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9175 CRP No. 100044 of 2022

¶62

the petitioner herein to make fresh application in the event the plaintiff not producing the suit documents even after completion of his evidence, the present petition is dismissed.

¶63

SD/JUDGE

¶64

VNP*/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt. Susilabi W/O. Veerabadrayya Bannimath Deceased Lrs as Below v. Nagabhushan S/O. Shekharappa Meti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Susilabi W/O. Veerabadrayya Bannimath Deceased Lrs as Below v. Nagabhushan S/O. Shekharappa Meti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Prabhu S/O Somanagouda Patil Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri. Ashok S/O Ningappa Savanur Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Jnaneshwar S/O Nagappa Ambure Vs the Divisional Controller

Chougale Education Society Vs Government of Karnataka

Srikanth S/O. Parameshwarappa Honnali Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Hasansab S/O Basusaheb Daded Vs the Management of Nwkrtc