Dismissed¶94

Sri a Prasad v. Sri N Bharath Reddy

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2025CRP/585/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (NC: 2025:KHC:47860), CRP No. 585 of 2023, V Srishananda J, 19.11.2025 — rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC refused; plea that specific-performance suit filed ~15 years after 19.12.2007 agreement to sell is limitation-barred held triable only after full-fledged trial, no notice of perfection of title having been issued; purchaser's minority at date of agreement held a mixed question of law and fact, beneficial contract ratifiable; Section 115 CPC revision dismissed, merits reserved.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision petition was dismissed and the Trial Court's order dismissing I.A.No.3 (rejection of plaint) was left undisturbed, with all contentions open to be urged in the suit. ¶94

Sri a Prasad Vs Sri N Bharath Reddy — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision petition was dismissed and the Trial Court's order dismissing I.A.No.3 (rejection of plaint) was left undisturbed, with all contentions open to be urged in the suit.

¶94

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit, filed after 15 years of the execution of the sale agreement, was barred by limitation / lacked cause of action, warranting rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC. +1 more

¶71

Court's answer

Since no notice was issued by the defendant about the perfection of title, the period of limitation sought to be canvassed as a defence can only be adjudged after a full-fledged trial; therefore the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation.

¶81

Ratio / Principle

Whether the purchaser was a minor as on the date of the agreement is a mixed question of law and fact (defendant contending minor, plaintiff contending major); assuming minority, a contract beneficial to the minor may be ratified — these matters are required to be adjudged by the Trial Court after recording evidence, and do not justify rejection of the plaint.

¶82

Key takeaways

This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter; all contentions available to the parties can be urged in the suit in accordance with law.obiter¶95

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC by the defendant in O.S.No.5036/2022 against the order dated 18.08.2023 of the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dismissing I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for rejection of the plaint. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 19.12.2007 (consideration Rs.1,85,60,000/-) in respect of A, B and C Schedule properties, and alternatively for refund of Rs.57,63,975/- with interest at 16% aggregating Rs.1,38,33,540/- in respect of 1 acre 08 guntas of D Schedule property. The defendant contended (i) that the suit, filed about 15 years after the agreement, was barred by limitation and disclosed no cause of action, and (ii) that the purchaser being a minor at the time of the agreement rendered it unenforceable. The High Court held that no notice of perfection of title had been issued by the defendant, so the limitation plea could be adjudged only after a full-fledged trial; and that minority on the date of agreement is a mixed question of law and fact, a contract beneficial to the minor being capable of ratification — both matters for the Trial Court on evidence. Revision petition dismissed; the Court expressly reserved all questions of merit for trial.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 585 OF 2023 (IO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. A. PRASAD ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO. 389, 1ST FLOOR, 13TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 080.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M. ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI. N. BHARATH REDDY S/O N. SURYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RAT NO. 550, 16TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, CMH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 038.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGA HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST ORDER DATED 18.08.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN OS NO.5036/2022 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC., OR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard Sri.M.Aswathanarayana Reddy, learned

¶24

counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Naga Harish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Aravind V. Chavan, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

Defendant in O.S.No.5036/2022 is the revision petitioner challenging the rejection of I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short).

¶26

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶27

3.1. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.5036/2022 in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 2 acres 16 guntas in respect of following properties and following prayer:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

PRAYER

¶32

“(a) Pass a judgment and decree of specific performance directing the defendant to execute a sale deed in respect of 2 acres 14 guntas over A, B & C Schedule Properties and handover possession of the same failing which the court may direct the execution of the sale deed through court and direct possession to be taken pursuant to agreement to sale between plaintiff and defendant.

¶33

(b) Pass a judgment and decree to refund a sum of Rs.57,63,975/-together with interest at 16% from 19.12.2007 to the date of filing of the suit of a sum of Rs. 1,38,33,540/- for failure to transfer title in respect of 1 acre 08 guntas in the D schedule property.

¶34

(c) To pass a judgment and decree to grant interest at 16% in respect of Rs 57,63,975/-from filing of this suit till actual payment.

¶35

(d) To pass such other suitable orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

'A' SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶40

All that part and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.60 now sub-numbered as Sy.No.60/1, situated at Shettyhalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring to an extent of 1 acre 02 guntas which is bounded on the

¶41

East by: Land belonging to Sri. G. Narayana West by: Land belonging to Smt. Kondamma North by: Government Road South by: Land belonging to Sri. Rajendra

¶42

'B' SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶43

¶44

East by: Land bearing Sy. No.20

¶45

West by: Land belonging to Smt. Kondamma North by: Land belonging to Sri. Bandappa South by: Land belonging to Smt. Kondamma

¶46

'C' SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶47

All that part and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.60. now sub-numbered as Sy No.60/1, situated at Shettyhalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli. Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring to an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas which is bounded on the

¶48

East by: Bandappa's land & Land Sy.No.20 West by: Arasappa's land (now sub-numbered as Sy.No.58/6) North by: Government Road South by: Land bearing Sy.Nos.18 & 29.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

'D' SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶53

All that part and parcel of the property bearing Sy. No.60 now sub-numbered as Sy.No.60/1, situated at Shettyhalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring to an extent of 1 acre 08 guntas which is bounded on the

¶54

East by: Sy.No.60/1 A Prasad land West by: Sy.No.58/6 Bharath Reddy land North by: 62 Feet Road Government Road South by: Sy.Nos. 19

¶55

3.2. An agreement to sell in respect of the suit

¶56

property was entered by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 19.12.2007. The consideration amount was fixed at Rs.1,85,60,000/-.

¶57

3.3. It is contented that the documents were perfected with regard to the title by the defendant but plaintiff failed to get the sale deed executed. However, plaintiff was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and there was a refusal by the defendant on several grounds and therefore suit came to be filed.

¶58

3.4. Defendant entered appearance and filed written

¶59

statement denying the suit agreement and also took the

¶60

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

ground that the agreement itself is void in view of the fact that the purchaser was a minor at the time of the suit agreement.

¶63

3.5. An application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC came to be filed seeking rejection of the plaint.

¶64

3.6. Plaintiff opposed the same by filing detailed written objections.

¶65

Learned Trial Judge considering the rival contentions of the parties dismissed the application by order dated 18.08.2023.

¶66

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court in this revision.

¶67

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that Trial Court failed to note that suit came to be filed after 15 years of the execution of the

¶68

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

sale agreement and therefore, there was no cause of action to file the suit and suit was barred by limitation.

¶72

He would further contend that purchaser being the minor at the time of agreement, agreement is unenforceable and therefore, plaint needs to be rejected.

¶73

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.

¶74

He would contend that there was no notice issued by the defendant about the perfection of the title to the suit property. Likewise, whenever the fact of the purchaser being a minor is disputed and even assuming that the purchaser is a minor, if the contract is beneficial to the minor, such a contract is not void-ab-initio but it is voidable at the instance of the minor.

¶75

Therefore, the grounds urged in the revision petition are not sufficient to annul the well reasoned order of the Trial Court and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶76

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

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

¶80

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there was no notice issued by the defendant about the perfection of the title.

¶81

Therefore, the period of limitation that is sought to be canvassed as a defence can only be adjudged after the full-fledged trial. Therefore, on that ground, plaint cannot be rejected.

¶82

Coming to the second ground namely the purchaser was a minor as on the date of the agreement is a mixed question of law and fact inasmuch as the defendant is contending that the purchaser is a minor whereas the plaintiff is contending that he was a major.

¶83