Revision against rejection of an application to reject a plaint seeking cancellation of a sale deed alleged to be vitiated by fraud. The High Court held limitation and Order II Rule 2 objections were mixed questions requiring trial and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.529 OF 2022 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SRI. JAKKA VINOD KUMAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SON OF LATE SH. JAKKA NARASIMHA REDDY PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: ZERENE VILLAGE, HOUSE NO.63/116, PHUTTAMONTHON, SAI-3 ROAD BANGKOK, THAILAND-10160 SINCE FEBRUARY 2016
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. JAKKA KIRAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SON OF LATE JAKKA SRIDHAR REDDY RESIDING AT FORTUNE INDIRA VILLA, VILLA NO.24, SAROJINI NAGAR, GUTTALA BEGUMPET, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD-500081 TELANGANA STATE
(BY SRI. B.V.ACHARYA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. SUMANA PARUCHURI DAUGHTER OF NEKKANTI VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CASABLANCA ROAD NO.29, PLOT NO.512 Z JUBILEE HILLS,
2
HYDERABAD-500033 TELANGANA.
RESPONDENTS 2, 3 AND 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLA ORCHIDS, HITEX CITY ROAD, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD-500084
WIFE OF LATE SH. JAKKA NARASIMHA REDDY PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ZERENE VILLAGE, HOUSE NO.63/116, PHUTTAMONTHON, SAI-3 ROAD, BANGKOK, THAILAND-10160 SINCE FERBRUARY 2016
6 . REDDY STRUCTRUES PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.133/1, THE RESIDENCY,
2ND FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560025
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ROHAN VEERANNA TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
3
VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2022 PASSED ON IA No.2 IN OS No.322/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA No.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a), (b) AND (d) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 15.11.2023 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The defendant No.1 in O.S.No.322/2022 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as ‘Trial Court’) has filed this revision petition challenging an order dated 10.11.2022 passed therein by which, an application (I.A.No.2) filed by him under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC was rejected.
4
(a) Declaring that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Plaint Schedule Property and consequently cancel the Sale Deed dt. 19-012006 registered as Document No.KRI-113007/2005-06 of Book-1 stored in CD No.KRID 171, in the office of Registrar, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore executed by the Plaintiff, in favour of Late JakkaVenkatramReddy in respect of the Plaint schedule which is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence.
(b) Consequently declare the Gift Deed dated 16-04-2007 which was registered in Book I as Document No.MDP-1-00342/2007-08 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mahadevapura, Bangalore executed by Late JakkaVenkatram
5
Reddy in favour of 1st Defendant as null and void and cancel the same.
(c) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or any other person claming through or under him from alienating or interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule Property by the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
6
they decided to relocate back to India in the year 2002 and work to save their marriage. Therefore, they took a house on lease at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, which was owned by the defendant No.1. The plaintiff therefore, came in touch with the defendant No.1 who claimed to be well conversant with real estate matters in Hyderabad and Bengaluru. She claimed that she purchased the suit property on 13.08.2001 and 14.08.2001 and another property bearing Sy.No.170/1 on 17.06.2004.
for divorce was filed by her husband in F.C.O.P. No.220/2006 before the Family Court at Hyderabad. Her husband threatened and took away her two minor children to cause grief to her. He also filed a suit in O.P.No.157/2006 before the Family Court, Hyderabad seeking for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and for consequential injunction. The plaintiff therefore, claimed that she was forced to scramble for a solution to safeguard her properties. She alleged that
7
taking advantage of this tumultuous situation, the defendant No.1 and his mother hatched a plan with his brother and the defendant No.2 to cheat her of all the properties. The defendant No.1 and his family allegedly won the trust and confidence of the plaintiff and coaxed her to transfer the properties that stood in her name to the name of the family members of the defendant No.1. She alleged that the defendant No.1 and her family members assured that the properties would be reconveyed back to her after the divorce and custody proceedings were over. She claimed that she was mislead to believe that she would not get any maintenance for her children, if there were properties in her name. The plaintiff therefore, agreed to the proposal of the defendant No.1 and his family, executed a sale deed dated 17.01.2006 in favour of the deceased husband of defendant No.2 nominally conveying the property bearing No.170/1. No consideration was paid by the husband of defendant No.2. Likewise, the defendant No.1 induced the plaintiff to execute a sale deed dated 19.01.2006 in respect of the
8
suit property in favour of the husband of defendant No.2, by showing the sale consideration as Rs.2,08,00,000/-, which purportedly was paid through a cheque bearing No.996787 drawn from Syndicate Bank, Madhapur Branch, Hyderabad. The plaintiff did not encash the cheque as instructed by the defendant No.1 as there are no funds in the account of the husband of the defendant No.2. In order to show that the sale consideration was paid to the plaintiff, the husband of defendant No.2 transferred the land bearing Sy.No.170/1 to Raghavendra Constructions and Developers Private Ltd., for Rs.9.09 crores of which, Rs.2.09 crores was received through cheque and Rs.7 crores through cash. The amount of Rs.2.09 crores was thereafter transferred to the plaintiff’s account on 11.05.2006.
9
Raghavendra Constructions Private Ltd., which was kept with the defendant No.1 for safe keeping, he purchased the agricultural land measuring 8-30 acres in Sy.No.475 in Malkajgiri District of Telangana on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 allegedly assured that the suit property was held in trust by him and that the same would be reconveyed to the plaintiff at an appropriate time. She claimed that the defendant No.1 and the husband of defendant No.2 handed over original sale deeds and documents related to the suit property to the plaintiff and thereby gained her confidence. She claimed that the defendant No.1 likewise induced her to transfer various plots situate in Hyderabad to the name of his friend with an understanding that they would be reconveyed back to her. The defendant No.1 got the sale deed dated 13.07.2006 cancelled after the dispute of the plaintiff with her husband was settled. Thus, the plaintiff started reposing more confidence in the defendant No.1 and was under the bonafide belief that he would retransfer the suit property to her. She claimed that when she filed a written
10
statement in O.P.No.157/2006, she contended that she sold away the land bearing Sy.No.170/1 and the suit property on 17.01.2006 and 19.01.2006 and in the compromise that was entered into, it was recorded that the plaintiff had sold away the aforesaid properties to the husband of defendant No.2. The plaintiff claimed that she paid money to her husband towards settlement which corresponded to his share of consideration mentioned in the sale deed of the suit property. She claimed that the brother of the defendant No.1 got the khatha and other revenue documents of the suit property transferred to his name without the notice of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 then directed the husband of defendant No.2 to execute a gift deed in his favour and conveyed the suit property, consequent to which, a gift deed dated 16.04.2007 was executed. The plaintiff claimed that on being questioned by her, the defendant No.1 with a view further strengthened the trust, handed over the original gift deed to the plaintiff. She alleged that all these acts of the defendant No.1 strengthen the trust in him. The
11
defendant No.1 thereafter, allegedly executed a Will dated 04.08.2008 bequeathing the suit property to the plaintiff. She claimed that the defendant No.1 thereafter became close to her and he married the plaintiff on 25.06.2011 at Hyderabad. She claimed that in view of the change in relationship, she bonafide believed that the suit property would be reconveyed to her in due course and in view of the Will dated 04.08.2008, she did not have any reason to doubt the intention of the defendant No.1. However, she claimed that whenever she raised the topic of reconveyance, the defendant No.1 allegedly postponed it on one or the other ground. She claimed that she and the defendant No.1 started residing along with her children and mother of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 fell into bad habits and his mother started ill-treating the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 allegedly started drinking excessively and during November 2013, his brother died of cancer. She claimed that on 23.12.2013, the defendant No.1 in an inebriated condition picked up a fight with the plaintiff over reconveyance of the suit property. He
12
allegedly pulled out a revolver and threatened the plaintiff and her children. He forcibly took signatures of the plaintiff on blank white papers and stamp papers. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 lodged a complaint before the Jubilee Hills police station reporting the loss of original documents of title of the suit property. He then filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.499/2015 before the Court in Bengaluru on false allegations. She claimed that the defendant No.1 was wayward and was influenced by his mother and sister-inlaw to harm her and when he was sober, he would apologize to her and assured her to re-register the property back to her. He also used to address letters and emails to the plaintiff seeking forgiveness.
13
had executed an agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 07.04.2018 in favour of M/s T.S.R. Infra to encumber the land bearing Sy.No.475 at Malkajgiri District, Telangana. The plaintiff claimed that she made several attempts to reach the defendant No.1 and settle the issues. However, he did not respond. The plaintiff therefore, then allegedly realized that the defendant No.1 had always dishonest intention of cheating her of the suit property. The defendant No.1 attempted to interfere with her possession of the suit property, which constrained her to file a complaint dated 14.11.2019 at Jubilee Hills police station, Hyderabad, who registered Crime No.742/2019. The jurisdictional police had allegedly addressed letter on 03.12.2019 to the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru, not to register any document in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff claimed that she filed O.S.No.1632/2019 against the defendant No.1, which she withdrew later as the name of the defendant No.1 was wrongly mentioned. She thereafter filed O.S.No.1648/2019 before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore, for perpetual injunction restraining the
14
defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property and from interfering with her possession. An interim order of injunction was granted on 10.12.2019 but was vacated on 08.09.2021. The plaintiff preferred an appeal which is pending consideration. The plaintiff therefore, claimed that the defendant No.1 who had won her trust had defrauded her. She alleged that defendant No.1 filed Crl.P.No.8073/2019 before the High Court of Judicature of Telangana to quash Crime No.742/2019, which was dismissed and S.L.P. (Criminal) No.82/2021 was pending consideration. The defendant No.1 thereafter filed O.P.202/2020 before the Family Court, Hyderabad for dissolution of the marriage, which also is pending consideration. The plaintiff therefore, contended that the defendant No.1 had fraudulently compelled her to execute the sale deed dated 19.01.2006 and therefore, sought for the reliefs mentioned above.
15
(b), (c) read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint on the following grounds:-
(iv) That the Court Fee paid is deficient.
16
9. This application was contested by the plaintiff,
who claimed that she was coaxed by the defendant No.1 to convey the property and that she did not realize that the defendant Nol.1 did so with a fraudulent intention. She claimed that the defendant No.1 had assured to reconvey the property and to gain her trust, he not only handed over the original sale deed but also the gift deed executed in his favour by his brother and then executed a Will and thereafter, married the plaintiff. She therefore, contended that the transaction was not benami but was brought about with a fraudulent intention and thus the provision of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988 did not apply. She also relied upon Section 2(9)(A)(ii) of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, which exempted the property held by a person standing in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of another person towards whom he stands in such capacity. She therefore, claimed that the Act did not apply and the suit was maintainable. She claimed that the turn of events from the date of handing over the originals of the sale deed, gift deed indicated the
17
oral agreement between the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff regarding reconveyance of the suit property. She contended that though it was agreed that the defendant No.1 shall retransfer the properties after conclusion of the matrimonial proceedings of her husband, however, the right to recover the property arose when the plaintiff had knowledge of the facts entitling her to seek cancellation of the sale deed. She therefore, claimed that she came to know of the oblique intent of the defendant No.1 only after the defendant No.1 dealt with the properties of plaintiff at Malkajgiri District and thereafter, he left to Bangkok and stopped all the communications with the plaintiff. She therefore, contended that the suit is not barred under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. She also contended that there was no illegality about the oral agreement and the object of the oral agreement was not illegal as no law prohibited it. Thus, on all these contentions, she claimed that the application for rejection of the plaint was not maintainable.
18
considered the application and in terms of the impugned order, rejected it on the following grounds:-
19
be tried to determine the date of
commencement of limitation.
(iv) That the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the husband of defendant No.2 may or may not be benami but also could be a sham transaction and therefore, without a fullfledge trial, the plaint cannot be rejected under Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act.
defendant No.1 has filed this revision petition.
20
Therefore, the suit filed after sixteen years is hopelessly barred by law of limitation and hence, the suit had to be rejected. He contended that as per the averments of the plaint, it was allegedly agreed orally that the property would be reconveyed after the divorce proceeding of the plaintiff and her first husband concluded. He claimed that the divorce decree was passed on 14.08.2007 and thus, even if the limitation is reckoned from this day, the time for reconveyance expired on 14.08.2010. He contended that even by this yardstick, the suit after 15 years was hopelessly barred. He claimed that atleast on 23.12.2013, when the plaintiff realised that the defendant No.1 had no intention to reconvey, when he pointed a revolver at her and obtained signatures at blank sheets and stamp papers, the suit must have been filed before 22.12.2016, but was filed after nearly 6 years therefrom and hence, the suit was hopelessly barred. He contended that the plaintiff must have realised that the defendant No.1 was claiming the suit property as his when he filed O.S.No.499/2015 and she having entered appearance and filed a written
21
statement on 15.10.2015, the time to file a suit for declaration commenced atleast from 15.10.2015 and hence, the suit must have been filed by 14.10.2018. He therefore, contended that the suit filed in the year 2022 is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation.
22
on the same cause of action. However, on the same day by suppressing the filing of O.S.No.1632/2019 and O.S.No.499/2015, she filed the present suit seeking a very same relief that she had sought for in O.S.No.1632/2019. He therefore, submitted that the present suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Coffee Board vs. M/s Ramesh Exports [(2014) 6 SCC 424].
23
for rejection of the plaint cannot be based on a detailed consideration of the correctness or otherwise of the averments made in the plaint. He contended that the plaint did mention a clear cause of action and was not expressly barred by any provision of any law. He contended that the transaction in question was not a benami transaction but the plaintiff was conned by the defendant No.1 in executing the sale deed dated 19.01.2006. He therefore, contended that the case was more like cloak and a dagger story. He submitted that from the day the plaintiff and her first husband landed at the house at Hyderabad belonging to the defendant No.1 till the day the defendant No.1 married her, there were series of events which led the plaintiff to believe the defendant No.1 and therefore, the right to sue did not accrue until the defendant No.1 filed a petition for divorce on 08.02.2020. He therefore, contended that the case presents complicated questions of fact and the aspect of limitation, in the facts and circumstances of this case is purely a mixed question of fact and law and therefore, the suit cannot be rejected on
24
the ground that it was barred by the law of limitation. He also contended that the transaction in question was not benami perse as there was no intention on the part of the defendant No.1 to hold the suit property in benami for the plaintiff. He submitted that though the transaction in question began on pure faith and trust and though the defendant No.1 promised to conduct himself in a particular way, he reined on his promise and therefore, this was a case of fraud committed by the defendant No.1 on the plaintiff. He therefore, contended that the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, would not apply to the facts and circumstance of this case. He contended that the suit filed in O.S.No.1632/2019 was for bare injunction and it was withdrawn and later, a suit in O.S.No.1648/2019 was filed. He contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit was not barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC.
25
would show that it was not illusory and not a result of clever drafting but the plaintiff laid the facts of the case as it transpired. He therefore, contended that there was no ingenuity in drafting the plaint to create cause of action. He submitted that the defendant No.1 could not deny that he had handed over the original sale deed, a gift deed, the Will and later married the plaintiff and also that he had filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. He therefore, contended that the large part of the facts mentioned in the plaint, were admitted. Thus, he contends that the plaint cannot be rejected on any of the grounds mentioned by the defendant No.1.
26
to it as well as the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
Court is expressly barred under Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Likewise, the
27
proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, cannot be challenged before the Civil Court in view of the express bar contained under Section 34. In the present case, the contention is that the suit is barred by the law of limitation. The question whether an action is barred by the law of limitation or not depends upon the facts pleaded in a particular case and therefore, the question of limitation is indeed a mixed question of fact and law. Ordinarily, the Courts would not venture out to shoot down a litigation on the ground of limitation unless there is a clear case where the plaintiff had knowledge of a particular fact resulting in the commencement of limitation. For example, in a suit for specific performance, if time for conclusion of the sale is fixed under an agreement, then the suit has to be filed within three years from the date fixed and in a case where the date of completion is not fixed and a notice is caused demanding conclusion of the transaction, time starts running from the day such a notice is issued. The party
28
cannot plead any other circumstance to halt the limitation once it begins. In the case on hand, there are so many facts commencing from the year 2006 and till the year 2020 during which time, the plaintiff claimed that she reposed absolute faith and confidence in the defendant No.1 that he would stick to his promise to reconvey the suit property. Therefore, it is very hazy at this stage to hold that the plaintiff had knowledge about the fraudulent intention of the defendant No.1 from the year 2006 till the year 2020 when the defendant No.1 filed a petition for divorce against the plaintiff. Therefore, it is very difficult at this stage to hold that the suit is barred by the law of limitation.
29
which, are not disputed by the defendant No.1. It is not uncommon for a person not to believe another when he or she conducts in an amiable and truthful manner. The events as pleaded by the plaintiff were open to doubt, if there was no relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The fact that the defendant No.1 married the plaintiff on 25.06.2011, makes it more than probable that there was an element of trust between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. The fact that the defendant No.1 has lead a marital life with the plaintiff till the year 2020 and his conduct in handing over all the documents relating to the suit property to the plaintiff, makes it more than evident that the facts pleaded by the plaintiff may not be an invention or a result of clever drafting. Thus, the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the defendant No.1 does not merit consideration.
30
” 2. Suit to include the whole claim .—(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.
(2) Relinquishment of part of claim .— Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.
(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs .—A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action.”
suit filed in the first instance namely, O.S.No.1632/2019
31
was for perpetual injunction to restrain the plaintiff from alienating the suit property by which time, the cause of action to sue for the relief of declaration had not completely arisen as the plaintiff claimed that the cause of arose on 08.02.2020 when the defendant No.1 filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in O.P.No.202/2020. Therefore, it cannot be held that the plaintiff was entitled to sue for the reliefs as on the date when the suit in O.S.No.1632/2019 was filed. Hence, on this ground too, the plaint could not have been rejected.
dismissed .
32
CPC and decide the same based on the evidence that may be adduced.
Sd/JUDGE
PMR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit was ex-facie barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act so as to justify rejection of the plaint.
Whether the suit was barred under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Whether the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC owing to the earlier withdrawn injunction suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurubasappa and others vs. GurulingappaReferred¶13
[AIR 1962 Mys 246] · Who else cites this
Chunchun Jha vs. Ibadat AliReferred¶13
[AIR 1954 SC 345] · Who else cites this
Coffee Board vs. M/s Ramesh ExportsReferred¶14
[(2014) 6 SCC 424] · Who else cites this
Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali and othersApplied¶19
[(2020) 7 SCC 366] · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri. Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy
Smt. Sumana Paruchuri
Nallapareddy Smita Reddy
Jakka Arnav Reddy
Jakka Vatsav Reddy
Jakka Sowjanya Reddy
R.Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
