Dismissed¶102

Sri. Chandrashekhara, v. Smt. H.V. Padma

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2025CRP/29/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - rejection of plaint - suit barred by limitation - limitation as mixed question of law and fact - no mini trial at threshold - Section 115 CPC revision - Karnataka High Court - Tumakuru - KHB acquisition notification 14.10.1993 - Land Tribunal Form No.7/Form No.10 occupancy rights order 22.12.1981 - sale by GPA holder after executant's death - compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC - declaratory decree and injunction suit - plaint averments alone to be considered at O7R11 stage.

What did the court decide?

The plaintiff has not suppressed any material fact; the plaint averments themselves reveal the Land Tribunal proceedings and the acquisition of a portion of the land in Sy.No.7/5 by the KHB. ¶84

Sri. Chandrashekhara, Vs Smt. H.V. Padma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶102

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.806/2023 is ex facie barred by limitation so as to justify its rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. +1 more

¶74

Court's answer

The plaintiff has not suppressed any material fact; the plaint averments themselves reveal the Land Tribunal proceedings and the acquisition of a portion of the land in Sy.No.7/5 by the KHB.

¶84

Ratio / Principle

Since the lands of Hanumaiah and Chikka Hanumanthaiah in Sy.No.7/5 stand acquired by the Karnataka Housing Board, on the plaint case no land remained to be conveyed by the alleged General Power of Attorney holder Khalander Hayath Khan to sell the property to third parties.

¶89

Key takeaways

Whether any land was left over, whether the plaintiff has a share in the remaining land, and whether the compromise decree created right, title and interest in the plaintiff in respect of the suit property are matters requiring recording of evidence and thorough enquiry before the Court forms an opinion.ratio¶90
A mini trial cannot be held at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC so as to reject the plaint at the threshold when there are serious disputed questions of facts.ratio¶91
In this case the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact having regard to the number of transactions concerning the suit property; where there is no scope for computing the period of limitation by mathematical precision, rejecting the plaint at the threshold is impermissible.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (S.115 CPC) by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.806/2023 (III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru) against order dated 05.01.2024 dismissing their I.A.No.VII under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The plaintiff (Respondent No.1) sought declaration of ownership under sale deed dated 30.08.2023 over 7½ guntas in Sy.No.7/5, Shettyhalli village, with mandatory and permanent injunction; the plaint itself disclosed the Land Tribunal occupancy-rights proceedings (Form No.7 applications allowed by order dated 22.12.1981, Form No.10 issued), KHB acquisition of 27½ guntas by notification dated 14.10.1993, and partition suit O.S.No.956/2018 ended in compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. Held: the plaint suppresses nothing; whether any land was left over, the plaintiff's share therein and the effect of the compromise decree are matters for evidence and enquiry; limitation is a mixed question of law and fact given the number of transactions and cannot be computed with mathematical precision, so rejection at the threshold is impermissible; no mini trial at the Order VII Rule 11 stage. Trial Judge's order upheld; revision petition dismissed with all contentions kept open for the pending trial.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49577 CRP No. 29 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2024 (IO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. CHANDRASHEKHARA, S/O SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT. HANUMANTHAGIRI, BELADARA POST, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 101.

¶10

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR R., S/O RAMANJANEYA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT. BEHIND BILMILLA HOTEL, B.H. ROAD, TUMAKURU CITY-572 101.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. LEELADHAR H P.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. H.V. PADMA, W/O P. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT. 2^ND CROSS, BEHIND D.C. OFFICE, SRIRAMA NAGARA, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶16

SHIVAKUMAR L.H., S/O M.V. HOSALLAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:49577 CRP No. 29 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

R/AT. NO.1639, 6^TH CROSS, MCECHS LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶21

SRI. B.S. GOWRISHANKAR, S/O LATE B.M. SIDDARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT. 6^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGAR, TUMAKURU CITY-572 101.

¶22

SRI. B.T. VENKATESHMURTHY, S/O B.M. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶23

SMT. M.N. SOWMYA, W/O VENKATESHMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶24

SL.NO. 4 AND 5 ARE R/AT. JAYANAGARA SOUTH EXTENSION, TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶25

THE COMMISSIONER, MAHANAGARA PALIKE, TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. S.C. VIJAYKUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶28

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5.01.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.VII IN OS NO.806/2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU., DISMISSING THE IA NO.VII FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:49577 CRP No. 29 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Heard Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel for the

¶36

revision petitioners and Sri S.C. Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶37

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.806/2023 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application in I.A.No.VII filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.

¶38

The facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition is as under:

¶39

3.1. Respondent No.1-Smt. H.V. Padma, filed the suit

¶40

in O.S.No.806/2023 with the following prayer in respect of

¶41

the following property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') :

¶42

PRAYER

¶43

'' Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to decree the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants by:

¶44

a) Declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of the sale deed dated 30-08-2023 executed by her vendors.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:49577 CRP No. 29 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

b) Grand mandatory injunction to remove the illegal construction made by the defendants on the suit schedule property and issue consequential order of permanent injunction against the defendant and their henchmen who are calcimining right under the defendants restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.''

¶49

SCHEDULE

¶50

'' All the piece and parcel of the agricultural dry land bearing Sy.No.7/5, Re.Sy.No.7/10 measuring 06.04 guntas assessing at 0.19 paise situated at Shettyhalli village, south Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru taluk and district bounded by:

¶51

East : 30 ft Road

¶52

West : Land of Asha and the land acquired by KHB.

¶53

North : Land of La Hi 3A2.

¶54

South : Others land ''

¶55

3.2. Plaintiff claimed the suit relief by contending that

¶56

she is owner of suit property having purchased the same from her vendor by the registered sale deed dated 30.08.2023 and revenue entries were mutated in her favour.

¶57

The plaint averments also reveals that father of the vendor of the plaintiff namely Hanumaiah was a tenant in respect of 0.25 guntas of land in Sy.No.7/5 in pursuant to the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, father of vendor of the plaintiff, Hanumaiah filed an application in

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:49577 CRP No. 29 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights and yet another tenant by name of Chikka Hanumanthaiah also claimed occupancy rights in respect of 10 guntas of land in the very same survey number.

¶62

Both the applications were allowed by Land Tribunal after conducting an enquiry and occupancy rights were granted by Tribunal by Order dated 22.12.1981 and Form No.10 came to be issued in favour of Hanumaya and Chikka Hanumanthaiah to the extent of 0.25 guntas and 0.10 guntas respectively in land bearing in Sy.No.7/5 of Shettyhalli Village, Tumkur Taluk and District .

¶63

When the matter stood, 27^1/2 guntas of land in Sy.No.7/5 was acquired by Karnataka Housing Board by notification dated 14.10.1993. It is further contented that vendors of the plaintiff are thus valid owners of the suit in possession of 7^1/2 guntas, which is the suit property and a suit for partition came to be filed in O.S.No.956/2018. There was a compromise in the said suit by filing necessary compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:49577 CRP No. 29 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

It is further alleged by the plaintiff that, general power of attorney holder of Hanumaiah, namely Khalander Hayath Khan, after death of Hanumaiah, on the strength of the said power of attorney executed a sale deed in favour of third parties and by playing fraud on those third parties and received the sale consideration. Thus, defendant No.5, without verifying the documents, properly, has purchased the property from the alleged power of attorney holder of Hanumaiah that too after his death and therefore he has no right for the defendant No.5 or anybody claiming under them. Thus, suit came to be filed.

¶68

Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Court filed written statement and also filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint.

¶69

Learned trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff on the said application, dismissed the said application holding in paragraph No.8 as under:

¶70

''8. It is a settled position of law that while considering the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC only

¶71

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:49577 CRP No. 29 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

the plaint averments and the documents filed along with the plaint shall be considered and any grounds urged in the written statement are of no avail. By considering the said aspect, now it is to be ascertained, whether the plaint averments discloses that the suit is barred by limitation. For the purpose of considering the same, the cumulative effect of the plaint averments shall have to be considered to ascertain the aspect of cause of action as well as the aspect of limitation. The plaintiff has sought for declaratory decree based on the said deed dated 30.08.2023 with respect to the suit schedule property and the cause of action which is urged under para-8 of the plaint is on 06.10.2023 when the agents of the defendants have come to the suit schedule property and started digging the southern side of said property on behalf of defendants. There is nothing in the plaint which exfacie suggests that the suit is barred by limitation. There are certain averments in the plaint that the GPA executed by the executant Hanumaiah in favour of Khalandar Hayath Khan was been acted upon even after the death of said Hanumaiah, but the said statement by itself would not disclose that the suit is barred by limitation. By considering all the above aspects, there are no grounds made out by the defendants No.1 and 2 to reject the plaint as the same is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the point under consideration is answered in the Negative.''

¶75

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 and

¶76

2 are before this Court by filing the present revision petition challenging the validity of the said order.

¶77

Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contented that suit is perse barred by limitation.

¶78

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:49577 CRP No. 29 of 2024

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

He would further contend that there is no cause of action to the suit inasmuch as, the property was sold by the general power attorney holder of Hanumaiah and therefore, the plaintiff cannot challenge the said sale deed that too in the year 2023 and thus sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶82

Per contra, Sri. S.C. Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent supports the impugned order.

¶83

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶84

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that plaintiff has not suppressed any fact with regard to the transactions in respect of land in Sy.No.7/5, inasmuch as plaint averments itself reveals about the proceedings as well as the acquisition of the portion of the land by the KHB.

¶85

It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that the land belonging to Hanumaiah and Chikka Hanumanthaiah has been acquired by the Karnataka Housing Board.

¶86

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:49577 CRP No. 29 of 2024

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

Therefore, no land remained to be conveyed by the alleged General Power of Attorney holder of Hanumaiah by name Khalander Hayath Khan to sell the property in favour of third parties.

¶90

Whether at all any land that was leftover and whether plaintiff has got a share in the remaining land and compromise decree created right, title and interest in the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, are all matters which requires evidence to be recorded and after thorough enquiry, Court has to form an opinion.

¶91

It is settled principles of law that mini trial cannot be held at the stage of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC so as to reject the plaint at the threshold when there are serious disputed questions of facts.

¶92

Further, question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact in the case on hand having regard to the number of transactions that has taken place in respect of the suit property. Thus, when there is no scope for computing

¶93