Dismissed¶61

Smt. Murudevi Alias Mudevi W/O Bhimappa Jamkhandi v. Siddappa S/O Nyamanan Jamkhandi

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2025CRP/100155/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Limitation — rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w S.151 CPC — suit for permanent injunction filed more than five and a half decades after 1966 mutation deleting plaintiff's father's name — plaint silent on plaintiff's knowledge of the mutation — mixed question of law and fact, triable — Trial Court's refusal to reject plaint upheld — CRP under S.115 CPC dismissed (High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, M.G.S. Kamal J, 13-06-2025, CRP No.100155 of 2023).

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was dismissed and the Trial Court's order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC stands, with the plaint not rejected. ¶61

Smt. Murudevi Alias Mudevi W/O Bhimappa Jamkhandi Vs Siddappa S/O Nyamanan Jamkhandi — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was dismissed and the Trial Court's order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC stands, with the plaint not rejected.

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.16/2023 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that the suit, filed in 2023, is barred by limitation in view of the plaint averment that the revenue entries were mutated in the name of Kallappa in 1966. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

Even if there was a delay in filing the suit, considering the averments made in the plaint, the issue of limitation/knowledge of the revenue entries is a mixed question of law and fact which needs to be thrashed in trial; the Trial Court rightly took this view and the application for rejection of the plaint was properly rejected.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint that he had knowledge of the change in revenue entries either in the year 1966 or subsequent thereto.

¶54

Key takeaways

No irregularity or illegality can be found with the order passed by the Trial Court; the petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶59-61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under S.115 CPC by defendant Nos.1 to 8 in O.S.No.16/2023 (suit for permanent injunction) against the order dated 25.07.2023 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, rejecting their application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint as barred by limitation. The plaint averred that in 1966, vide M.E.No.3647 of Savalagi village, the name of the plaintiff's father Nyamanna was deleted from the revenue records and that of one Kallappa was entered; the suit was filed in 2023 after RTS Revision No.20/2019 was dismissed on 01.04.2021 with a direction to approach the Civil Court. Held, dismissing the petition: the plaint nowhere pleads that the plaintiff had knowledge of the change in revenue entries in 1966 or thereafter; even if there was delay, on the plaint averments the issue is a mixed question of law and fact to be thrashed at trial; no irregularity or illegality in the Trial Court's order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100155 OF 2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. MURUDEVI @ MUDEVI W/O. BHIMAPPA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330.

¶11

BHIMAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT – 587 330.

¶12

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶13

TAMMANNA S/O. PADMANNA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330.

¶14

BALURAI S/O. SHANTAPAP JAMKHANDI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330.

¶15

PADMANNA S/O. SHANTAPPA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330.

¶16

JINAPPA S/O. BALAPPA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BALAPPA S/O. JINAPPA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330.

¶21

SMT. BALAWWA W/O. BHIMAPPA JAMKHANDI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SIDDAPPA S/O. NYAMANAN JAMKHANDI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330, REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER RAMESH S/O. SIDDAPPA JAMKHANDI, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶26

…RESPONDENT

¶27

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2023 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI, ON IA NO.1 IN OS NO.16/2023 AND ALLOW IA NO.1 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BY REJECTING THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.16/2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)

¶34

This petition is by the defendant Nos.1 to 8 aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2023 passed in OS No.16/2023 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi (for short, ‘Trial Court’), by which the application filed by petitioners herein under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) came to be rejected.

¶35

Plaintiff/respondent herein filed the above suit seeking relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit land belongs to the family of the plaintiff and it is an ancestral property of the plaintiff’s family. The father of the plaintiff one Nyamanna was the absolute owner being in possession and enjoyment of the same during his lifetime. The revenue records stood in

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

his name. Upon his demise, the plaintiff succeeded to the suit property and continued to the possession and enjoyment of the same. That the father of the plaintiff Nyamanna was not having sound mind of disposal. During his lifetime, he used to lease out the suit land to others to meet his financial requirements. That from the year 1950 onwards as per the previous records name of said Nayamanna continued in the owners in the record of rights and in the year 1966 his name was deleted vide M.E.No.3647 of Savalagi village. The said mutation entries were created behind the back and in collusion with the revenue officials thereby name of one deceased Kallappa was entered in the revenue records. The said Kallappa was no way concerned with the family of the plaintiff or his predecessors. Defendants in furtherance of the said entries were asserting rights over the suit property creating clouds over the title of the plaintiff and also trying to forcibly entered upon the suit property causing disturbance in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

An application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by defendant No.5, primarily seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had admitted that the name of predecessor of defendant by name Kallappa, had been mutated in the revenue records in respect of suit property. The said revenue entries were of the year 1966 and the suit is filed in the year 2023 i.e., after the expiry of more than five and half decades and as such the suit is barred by limitation. Objection statements to the said application came to be filed. The trial Court on consideration of the application and the objection

¶42

filed by the respondent – plaintiff, by the impugned order rejected the application. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent – plaintiff himself at paragraph No.6 of the plaint unequivocally averred that the revenue entries were made by deleting the name of his father and substituting the name of one Kallappa, back in the year 1966 and the suit

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

having been filed in the year 2023, an inference has to be drawn regarding the plaintiff having had the knowledge of these changes in the revenue entries. That the trial Court however has found that the said aspect of the matter is mixed question of fact and law requiring trial, which is erroneous. As such he seeks for setting aside the impugned order and to allow the petition.

¶48

Heard. Perused the records.

¶49

The application seeking rejection of plaint is filed solely on the basis of the averments made in paragraph No.6 of the plant, in which, the plaintiff has stated that during the year 1950 and even prior to thereof the name of Nyamanna continued to reflect in the revenue records and in the year 1966, the name of Nyamanna was deleted and the name of Kallappa has been entered into the revenue records. However, at paragraph No.8, the plaintiff has pleaded that recently it was ascertained that the surname of the families

¶50

of plaintiff and the defendants is one and the same and the names of the predecessor of the plaintiff and defendants are

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

also one and the same, as such the name of the predecessor of defendants was entered in the revenue records and was continued. That after ascertaining the said mistake of fact in the revenue records, the plaintiff approached the defendant for rectification, but they protracted the matter for one or the other reason. As such the plaintiff approached the revenue Court by initiating proceedings in RTS Revision No.20/2019, which was dismissed on 01.04.2021 directing the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. Accordingly, the suit was filed.

¶54

The Trial Court taking a note of this aspect of the matter rejected the application. Plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint that he had the knowledge of such change of revenue entries either in the year 1966 or subsequent thereof.

¶55

As rightly taken note of by the Trial Court even if there was a delay in filing the suit, considering averments made in the plaint, the said issue needs to be thrashed in a trial, as the same is one of mixed questions of law and fact.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7659 CRP No. 100155 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59