Plaintiff's suit challenging a sale deed as fraudulent was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) for want of cause of action. The High Court held the court below erred by considering defence contentions and that foundational fraud pleadings sufficed; it set aside the rejection and restored the suit for trial.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100056 OF 2024 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
BALANAGOUDA S/O. SHANKARGOUDA, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MAINALLI VILLAGE-583231, TQ. AND DIST: KOPPAL.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO C/R3)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT KOPPAL ON IA NO.2 DATED 30.10.2023 IN O.S.NO.172/2022 & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD)
This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S No.172/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Koppal [for short, “ the civil Court ”]. The appellant’s suit is rejected under Order VII Rule 11[a] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, “CPC”] by the impugned order dated 30.10.2023. The appellant’s case as against the impugned order is on the short ground that the civil Court has rejected the plaint without considering the appellant’s case that the impugned Sale Deed dated 02.11.2022 is a result of fraud and that the appellant has pleaded material circumstances to demonstrate fraud and therefore, the civil Court could not
have rejected the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action for the suit.
notice calling upon the respondents to execute cancellation
deed and the appellant was also present at the SubRegistrar’s Office on the designated date with the amount, but the appellant did not turn up. The learned counsel argues that if these are essential facts as averred in the plaint, the appellant has also set forth elaborately the cause of action for the suit.
caveators - respondents, submits on the other hand that the appellant has suppressed the fact that the respondents have even transferred the amount of Rs.10,10,000/- as against the amount covered under the instrument which is initially returned and because the plaint is filed suppressing the aforesaid fact, the appellant cannot ascertain any cause of action. The learned counsel emphasizes that paragraph-10 cannot confer any cause of action.
appellant has sought for declaration that the Sale Deed is null and void, and also for cancellation of the Sale Deed, and
that these two are to be irreconcilable reliefs and hence, the plaint is rightly rejected. The learned counsel also argues that even if there is any cause of action for the suit, it must be for an alternative appropriate suit and not with the prayers as is now presented.
statement that is filed by the respondents. It is trite that for
the purposes of rejecting the plaint, the Court must necessarily examine the plaint averments and not the defense that could be made by the defendants. Further, this Court must observe that even if the respondents have transferred the afore amount as they contend, the circumstances surrounding the same must be brought on record for a decision whether the appellant has filed impermissible cause. As such, the civil Court could not have rejected the plaint taking note of the respondents’ case that sum of Rs.10,10,000/- has been transferred by RTGS.
plaint is [i] bereft of pleadings and [ii] justify dismissal on the ground of want of cause of action. As regards the contentions urged by Sri. A. S. Patil, this Court must observe that this touch upon the merits of the case and that as a matter for trial for appropriate decision. Hence, the following:
ORDER
SD/(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
PMP,
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaint alleging fraud in obtaining a sale deed could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) for want of cause of action.
Whether rejection of plaint could rest on defence averments such as an RTGS transfer not pleaded in the plaint.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Balanagouda S/o Shankargouda
Sri. Shivabasappa Sandigawada
Sri. Mahabaleshwar S/o Shivappa Puradagudi
Sri. Mallikarjun Rachappa Ganiger
B.M. Shyam Prasad
C M Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
