Allowed

Sri Anjinappa v. Shri Ramappa @ Ramegowda

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2024CRP/331/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the trial court's order dismissing an application to reject the plaint in a suit for permanent injunction. Relying on a prior decree which conclusively held the plaintiff was not in possession of the property, the revision petition was allowed and the plaint rejected.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.03.2023 was set aside, the application to reject the plaint was allowed, and the plaint was rejected.

Sri Anjinappa Vs Shri Ramappa @ Ramegowda — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:51036 CRP No. 331 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 331 OF 2023 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI ANJINAPPA S/O LATE HENNANGUR MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶9

SRI M SHANKAR KUMAR S/O LATE HENNANGUR MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶10

SMT RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O M ANJINAPPA

¶11

SMT VIDYASHRI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O M ANJINAPPA

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SHRI HARISH HEGADE AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O M ANJINAPPA

¶14

SHRI MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O M ANJINAPPA

¶15

SHRI DIXIT GOWDA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O M ANJINAPPA

¶16

MALA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, D/O M ANJINAPPA

¶17

SHRI SURESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:51036 CRP No. 331 of 2023

¶19

SON IN LAW OF M ANJINAPPA NO.9.

¶20

SMT SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O M SHANKAR KUMAR NO.10.

¶21

SMT AMARAVATHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O M SHANKAR KUMAR

¶22

DAKSHAYINI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, D/O M SHANKAR KUMAR

¶23

KIRAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O M SHANKAR KUMAR

¶24

ALL ARE R/AT DYAPASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALLUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563 101.

¶25

…PETITIONERS

¶26

(BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SHRI RAMAPPA @ RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE NALLUR EERAPPA, R/O SHAM HOSPITAL ROAD, BANAGARPET TOWN, PRESENTELY RESIDING AT DYAPASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI 563101, MALLUR TALUK.

¶29

…RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SRI. MUNIYAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2023 PASSED ON I.A.IV IN OS.NO.215/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:51036 CRP No. 331 of 2023

¶34

JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, REJECTING THE I.A.IV FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) AND R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The petitioners have filed the present revision petition challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, wherein their application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

¶38

The respondent/plaintiff had instituted a suit for permanent injunction, contending that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy.No.126, measuring East-West 150 feet and North-South 120 feet. The plaintiff claims to have derived title to the said property through a compromise decree passed in O.S. No.34/2006. The said compromise decree was subsequently challenged by Defendants Nos.1 and 2 in O.S. No.175/2011. However, the Trial Court dismissed O.S. No.175/2011, and the validity of the compromise decree was neither questioned nor invalidated in those proceedings. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.175/2011 attained finality upon being confirmed in R.A. No.117/2019. Consequently, the plaintiff asserts lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:51036 CRP No. 331 of 2023

¶41

Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 objected to the maintainability of the suit, contending that the schedule property in question was already adjudicated in O.S. No.175/2011, wherein the Trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction in favor of the defendants, and the said decree attained finality. They argued that the plaintiff is not in possession of the schedule property as established in O.S. No.175/2011, and, therefore, there is no cause of action for instituting the present suit. Despite these objections, the Trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, prompting the present revision petition by Defendants Nos. 1 to 13.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the schedule property involved in the present suit was the subject matter of adjudication in O.S. No.175/2011. In that case, the Trial Court had decreed the suit for permanent injunction in favor of the defendants, which has attained finality. Therefore, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit. He further submitted that the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.34/2006 was challenged and sought to be declared illegal in O.S. No.94/2011.

¶43

In response, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the plaintiff was not a party

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:51036 CRP No. 331 of 2023

¶46

to O.S. No.94/2011, and as such, the decree passed in that case is not binding on him. He further argued that the property involved in the present suit and the property in O.S. No.175/2011 are distinct and independent. Consequently, the findings in O.S. No.175/2011 are not relevant to the plaintiff’s claim in the present suit.

¶47

The plaintiff asserts ownership and possession over the suit schedule property based on the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.34/2006. However, it is evident that the schedule property in the present suit and the schedule property in O.S. No.175/2011 are the same. In O.S. No.175/2011, the Trial Court categorically held that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, and this finding has attained finality. Furthermore, while the declaration of title concerning the property remains pending before this Court, the Trial Court’s decree regarding possession operates against the plaintiff in the present proceedings.

¶48

In the plaint, the plaintiff claims to be the owner in possession of the property bearing Sy.No.126, measuring East-West 150 feet and North-South 120 feet, derived under the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.34/2006. However, this claim is inconsistent with the findings in O.S. No.175/2011, where the Trial Court conclusively held that the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:51036 CRP No. 331 of 2023

¶51

plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. As the decree in O.S. No.175/2011 has attained finality, the plaintiff’s assertion of possession is unsustainable.

¶52

Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC mandates rejection of a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action, and Rule 11(d) permits rejection if the suit is barred by law. In the present case, the findings in O.S. No.175/2011 conclusively establish that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property, thereby negating any cause of action for the present suit for permanent injunction. Moreover, the principle of res judicata may operate to bar the present suit, as the issues regarding possession were conclusively adjudicated in the earlier suit.

¶53

In light of the above, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The plaint ought to have been rejected as it fails to disclose a cause of action and is otherwise barred by law. Accordingly, the order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside, and the plaint is to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i) The revision petition stands allowed.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:51036 CRP No. 331 of 2023

¶58

ii) The impugned order dated 18.3.2023 passed in OS No.215/2022 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur is hereby set aside, and the application is allowed, and consequently, the plaint is rejected.

¶59

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶60

BKM

Sri Anjinappa v. Shri Ramappa @ Ramegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anjinappa v. Shri Ramappa @ Ramegowda

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

Punitha Vs the Director of Municipal Administration

Mr Abhishek Mishra Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Motla Krishnakanth Vs Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Sri Somanath, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramesh Vs Sri. M. Mayalagu

Sri Subramanya Nattoja Vs the Assistant Election Officer