Allowed

Sri. Ramappa v. Sri. Ananda

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2024CRP/144/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants sought rejection of a plaint challenging a 1967 sale deed and seeking possession. The High Court held that under Article 65 of the Limitation Act a suit for possession based on a void document must be filed within twelve years of the defendant's possession becoming adverse, so the suit was time-barred. The trial court's order was set aside and the plaint rejected.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; I.A.No.III allowed; plaint rejected; I.A.No.1/2023 disposed as not surviving.

Sri. Ramappa Vs Sri. Ananda — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46879 CRP No. 144 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 144 OF 2021 (IO)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE NANJAPPA, R/AT HANDARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 110.

¶8

SRI GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O MUNITHAYAPPA, R/AT HANDARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 110.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. VIVEK B N, ADVOCATE FOR

¶11

SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. ANANDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. LATE NYTHAPPA, R/AT KYALASANAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU-562 077.

¶15

SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA, R/AT HARDANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:46879 CRP No. 144 of 2021

¶18

DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 110.

¶19

SMT LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE. MUNIYAPPA, R/AT HENNUR VILLAGE, A.K.COLONY, KALYANANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶20

SMT SHATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA, R/AT SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 560 067.

¶21

SMT NEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA

¶22

SRI NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA

¶23

SRI CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA

¶24

SRI RAVI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA

¶25

SMT KADIRAMMA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, D/O.LATE MUNIGA @ MUGAPPA,

¶26

RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 9 ARE R/AT HARDANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 135.

¶27

SMT MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, D/O.MUNIGA @ MUGAPPA,

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46879 CRP No. 144 of 2021

¶29

R/AT DOOR NO.170, GEDLAHALLI, R.MV 2ND STAGE, SANJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶30

SRI NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O MUNIGA @ MUGAPPA, R/AT DOOR NO.170, GEDLAHALLI, R.MV 2ND STAGE, SANJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶31

SRI NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O MUNIGA @ MUGAPPA, HARDANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 135.

¶32

GORLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS:

¶33

SRI G AKKIMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O LATE GORLAPPA

¶34

DASAPPA AND HIS SON AKKIMUNIYAPPA SINCE BOTH DEAD BY THEIR LRS. SRI NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O.LATE AKKIMUNIYAPPA,

¶35

SRI NATARAJA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O.LATE AKKIMUNYAPPA,

¶36

SRI GOPALASWAMY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O.LATE NANJUNDAPPA, R/AT HITTARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 110.

¶37

SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:46879 CRP No. 144 of 2021

¶40

S/O.LATE CHIKKADASAPPA,

¶41

SRI MUNITHAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKADASAPPA,

¶42

SRI KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKADASAPPA,

¶43

SRI PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKADASAPPA,

¶44

SRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKADASAPPA,

¶45

SMT V MALA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, W/O GOPALAKRISHNA,

¶46

SMT G MAITHRI AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, D/O GOPALAKRISHNA SICE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND HER FATHER PETITIONER NO.2 GOPALAKRISHNA,

¶47

RESPONDENT NO. 13 TO 15, 17 TO 23 ARE R/AT HANDRAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 110.

¶48

SRI G BABU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O GANGAPPA NAIDU, R/AT NO.16, 2ND MAIN ROAD, BALAJI LAYOUT, MARAGONDANAHALLI, KRISHNARAJAPURAM POST, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶49

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B S SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R12; SRI. B M SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R16;

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:46879 CRP No. 144 of 2021

¶52

R13 TO R15, R17 TO R23 ARE SERVED-UNREPRESENTED; V/O/D.29.10.2024, NOTICE TO R24 IS D/W)

¶53

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO. III IN OS.NO.744/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IIND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a)(d) OF CPC.

¶54

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶55

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶56

ORAL ORDER

¶57

The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Trial Court, which rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by the petitioners, who are Defendant Nos. 6 and 11 in the suit.

¶58

The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No.744/2020, seeking a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, and consequently, to direct Defendant Nos.6 to 11 to hand over the physical possession of the suit schedule property, and also to cancel the sale deed dated 26.01.1967 and subsequent sale deeds.

¶59

The plaintiffs claim that one Muniga @ Muguppa was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and continued to be in possession and enjoyment of it. After the death of Muniga @ Muguppa, two persons, namely Dasiga

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:46879 CRP No. 144 of 2021

¶62

and Gorlonu, who had no right or title over the property, allegedly conveyed it to Muniyappa and Nanjappa through a registered sale deed dated 26/01/1967. Based on these fraudulent documents, the names of Muniyappa and Nanjappa were entered into the revenue records in collusion with the revenue authorities.

¶63

The plaint states that the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 20.08.2020, when the plaintiffs became aware of the fraudulent activities of the defendants. Defendant Nos. 6 and 11 entered appearance and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC to reject the plaint. The Trial Court, after considering the arguments of the parties and perusing the plaint, rejected the application, stating that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and is a triable issue. The rejection of the application prompted Defendant Nos.6 and 11 to file the present petition.

¶64

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners (Defendant Nos.6 and 11) and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, and perused the plaint.

¶65

Perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiffs have specifically sought a direction for the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property, which implies that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs also challenge the sale

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:46879 CRP No. 144 of 2021

¶68

deed dated 26.01.1967, allegedly executed by two persons who had no title to the property. The plaintiffs have not provided evidence to show the date on which they were dispossessed of the property. The plaintiffs’ specific case is that Defendant Nos.6 to 11 are in possession based on a void document.

¶69

A suit for possession based on a void document is subject to the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. According to Article 65 of the Limitation Act, a suit for possession of immovable property based on title (i.e., ownership or rightful claim) must be filed within 12 years from the date the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.

¶70

In the case where the possession of the defendant is based on a void document, the time for filing the suit starts from when the plaintiff is dispossessed or when the possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Even if the document is void, the defendant’s possession, once established, becomes a relevant factor for determining when the limitation period begins.

¶71

Thus, for a suit based on a void document, the 12 year limitation period applies from the point when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff, and

¶72

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:46879 CRP No. 144 of 2021

¶73

the plaintiff should file the suit within this period to claim possession.

¶74

In this case, although the subject property was conveyed in 1967, and following the conveyance, the names of the purchasers were mutated in the revenue records, and they took possession of the property, the suit should have been filed within twelve years from the time the defendants’ possession became adverse to the plaintiffs.

¶75

In the instant case, the suit was filed in 2020, more than 50 years after the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation, as stipulated under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

¶76

The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs in Chhotanben and Anr. v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and Ors. is not applicable to the facts of this case.

¶77

In view of the clear provisions of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the fact that the suit was filed more than 50 years after the execution of the sale deed, the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is legally unsustainable.

¶78

¶79

NC: 2024:KHC:46879 CRP No. 144 of 2021

¶80

ORDER

¶81

i) This CRP is allowed

¶82

ii) The impugned order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, & JMFC, Devanahalli, Bangaluru Rural District, in O.S.No.744/2020 on I.A.No.III is hereby set aside, and I.A.No.III is allowed. Consequently, the plaint stands rejected.

¶83

iii) In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of .

¶84

Sd/-

¶85

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)

¶86

JUDGE

¶87

Sri. Ramappa v. Sri. Ananda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ramappa v. Sri. Ananda

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

K.R. Jagadish Vs Joint Director of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs

Manjunath K R Vs the State of Karnataka

Anukumar v Vs the State of Karnataka

S. Anilkumar Vs Punjab & Sind Bank

Smt.Siddamma.a Vs Sri.Subbappa

Sri Narayana Murthy H M Vs the Registrar