Allowed

Mr. Sarwar Hussain Mir v. M/S Deone Marketing Service

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2025RFA/2606/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff suing for injunction against alleged trespassers based on agreements to sell and a registered GPA saw his plaint rejected by the trial court as barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court held that bar inapplicable where defendants are strangers, not true owners, and set aside the rejection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting plaint in O.S.No.357/2024 set aside; matter remitted to trial court; parties directed to appear before trial court on 04.08.2025.

Mr. Sarwar Hussain Mir Vs M/S Deone Marketing Service — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2606 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. SARWAR HUSSAIN MIR, W/O GHULAM MUSTAFA MIR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO. 9/5, EAGLE STREET, LONGFORD TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 025.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M.D AND LEGAL AXIS, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M/S. DEONE MARKETING SERVICE REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS DIRECTORS (A) SRI SITARAMARAJU MANTHENA S/O RAMAM MANTHENA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶13

(B) SRI SREEHARI RAJU SAGIRAJU S/O SANGIRAJU KRUSHNA RAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶14

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 13, 2ND FLOOR, PARIPOORNA LAYOUT, PHASE-3, RAJANUKUNTE, YELHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶15

MR. SYED HAMEEDUL HASSAN,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

S/O MIR NEKHON ALI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶19

MR. MIR MUJEEB RAZA S/O MIR VAJID ALI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶20

MR. SYED ZAMIN RAJA S/O SHEKHAWAT HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶21

DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4 ARE R/AT ALIPURA VILLAGE, THONDE- BHAVI HOBLI, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALAPUR DIST. - 561 211.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. HARISH H.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A AND B); SRI. SHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶24

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 PASSED ON IA IN OS.NO.357/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GAURIBIDANUR, ALLOWING THE IA FILED U/O VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

The captioned appeal is filed by the plaintiff assailing the order impugned rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff by applying the provisions of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, (for short, 'Act').

¶30

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their ranks before the Trial Court.

¶31

The plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction simplicitor in O.S.357/2024 against the defendants. The plaintiff is tracing right over the property in question based on a registered GPA in favour of the plaintiff dated 11.03.2019. Along with the registered GPA, the plaintiff has also specifically claimed that the original owners executed an agreement to sell on 08.09.2015, followed by a supplementary agreement of sale dated 08.03.2019. The present suit is filed alleging that defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property and they are interfering and therefore a suit for injunction is filed.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Defendant No.2, on receipt of summons, has

¶35

tendered appearance and filled an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a and d) of the CPC contending that plaintiff's suit for injunction is hit by the provisions of section 41(h) of the Act and therefore, sought for rejection of the plaint.

¶36

Learned Judge has heard the plaintiff's counsel and defendants counsel on application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a and d). The learned Judge accepting the objections raised by dependent No.2, has rejected the plaint on the ground that the relief sought in the plaint is hit by provisions of section 41(h) of the Act. The said rejection of plaint is under challenge.

¶37

Learned counsel for the plaintiff, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo, vehemently argues and contends that the plaintiff, apart from securing two agreements, has also obtained a registered GPA from the original owner, which is coupled with interest and the entire sale consideration is paid and therefore, the

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

defendants, being strangers, cannot interfere and

¶41

therefore, he would point out that the provisions of section 41(h) are not at all applicable to the case on hand since the plaintiff is not seeking an injunction against the owners but against strangers. Referring to Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, he would point out that the registered GPA obtained by the plaintiff from the original owners is coupled with interest and the entire sale consideration is paid and therefore, learned Judge erred in applying the provisions of section 41(h) of the Act.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the defendants has vehemently argued and contended that

¶43

the plaintiff cannot maintain this suit since he is an agent and the bar under section 230 of the Indian Contract Act as an agent he cannot personally enforce a contract on behalf of the principal. He also cited Order 3 Rule 2 of the CPC, contending that the plaint is defective and therefore liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Having heard both counsels, the following point

¶48

would arise for consideration:

¶49

i. Whether the finding of the trial court that the present suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is hit by provisions of section 41(h) of the Act is perverse, palpably erroneous and warrants interference?

¶50

ii. Whether the provisions of section 41(h) of the Act can be examined while entertaining an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC?

¶51

iii. What order?

¶52

Findings on points No.i and ii:

¶53

9. Before this Court proceeds to examine the case

¶54

on hand, this Court deems it fit to cull out paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the plaint, which read as under:

¶55

"3. It is submit the after that the sellers of the Plaintiff and their family members Plaintiff executed the General power of and attorney in the name of Plaintiff

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

dated 11/3/2019 delivered the all rights in favour of the Plaintiff and delivered the Physical possession in favour of the Plaintiff and they are fully agreed the receive the full sale consideration and there is no balance sale consideration in the sale agreement for registration and the sellers of the Plaintiff fully agreed that we will not cancel the G.P.A at any point of time hence said G.P.A is irrevocable G.P.A from the date of the G.P.A the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the Plaintiff invested huge money more than 20 to 30 lacks for leveling the suit schedule property for the purpose of the agriculture and put the fencing around the suit schedule property and improved the suit schedule property by labor and efforts of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property without disturbance from any body.

¶60

4. It is submit that the defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property without have any manner of right title or possession or enjoyment over the suit schedule property, the defendants are manipulated names some documents in their on the strength of the manipulated documents they are seriously attempting to interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property by trespassing up on the suit schedule property with an intention to causing hardship and injury and seriously attempting to disposes to the Plaintiff from the suit schedule property, hence the Plaintiff lodge a complaint before the concern Police the concern Police received the complaint of the Plaintiff dated: 28-06-2024 and not taking any action against the defendants and they are issued endorsement to the plaintiff Dated 29-06-2024 go and get the relief in the Civil court."

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

This Court also deems it fit to extract the

¶64

relevant paragraphs of the affidavit filed in support of application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a and d) of the CPC. Paragraph No.5 would be relevant and the same is extracted, which reads as under:

¶65

"5. I state that, in view of the alleged claim of the plaintiff that the transaction between the parties is of enforcement of the agreement, as such section 41(h) of The Specific Relief Act, which reads that Section 41 - Injunction when refused An Injunction cannot be granted 41(h) “When equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust". The plaintiffs' alleged claim in the suit is one arising out of Agreement and the same is required to be enforced. Hence in view of a specific bar under the Specific Relief Act. Further the Plaintiff has produced a notice, in which the plaintiff has sent the same to Sri. Syed Mohammed Kazim @ Mir Mohamad Kazim and his family members for compliance in terms of the alleged agreement of sale in order to enforcement of the agreement the present suit of the plaintiff is bar under section 41 (h) of The Specific Relief Act as such the plaint is liable to be rejected. Hence the accompanying application."

¶66

On a meticulous examination of the averments

¶67

made in the plaint, coupled with paragraph No.5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application under Order VII

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, this

¶71

Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the true scope and ambit of Order VII Rule 11. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that there is no proper analysis as to whether the bar under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, can be a valid ground for rejection of the plaint at the threshold. The learned Judge has proceeded mechanically without applying his mind to the settled principles of law governing the rejection of plaints. Crucially, the learned Judge has not ventured to examine whether the statutory bar under Section 41(h) constitutes a legal embargo falling within the purview of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, which mandates rejection of the plaint only when it discloses an inherent legal bar to the suit. Further, there is a total absence of judicial reasoning as to how Section

¶72

41(h), which pertains to the grant or refusal of an injunction, can be pressed into service for rejecting the plaint in limine.

¶73

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

It is now well-settled through a catena of

¶76

judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court that a plaintiff who is merely an agreement holder, even if in possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, cannot maintain a bare suit for injunction against the original owner, unless the suit is accompanied by a prayer for specific performance. However, the present case is factually distinguishable. A careful perusal of the pleadings discloses that the plaintiff has not instituted the suit against the true owner of the property, but rather against alleged trespassers or third parties who are strangers to the contract. Despite taking a strong plea under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, the defendants have not disclosed or established any proprietary or possessory interest over the suit schedule property. The affidavit filed in support of the application under Order VII Rule 11 is conspicuously silent on this aspect. This material omission assumes significance and undermines the defendants’ claim that the suit is barred by law.

¶77

11 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

The crucial issue that arises for consideration

¶81

in the present case is whether clause (h) of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act can be invoked as a legal bar at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The object of Section 41(h) is to prevent a plaintiff from seeking injunctive relief where an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available to him by way of a suit for specific performance. This bar, however, cannot be mechanically applied to all cases founded on agreements to sell. The phrase "equally efficacious relief" used in Section 41(h) must be interpreted contextually and not abstractly. It contemplates a remedy that is equally prompt, convenient, and effective in the given factual context. Whether such an alternative remedy exists or not must be determined on a case-to-case basis, depending on the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction and the nature of the relief sought.

¶82

12 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

In the facts of the present case, the suit is not instituted against the true owners but against alleged trespassers who are strangers to the agreement. Hence, the legislative intent behind clause (h) of Section 41 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to compel the plaintiff to seek a more comprehensive remedy is not attracted. The plaintiff has not set up a plea of ownership but seeks protection of his possessory rights against persons who, according to him, are rank outsiders and have no legal or contractual relationship with the suit schedule property. Therefore, the statutory bar contemplated under Section 41(h) is inapplicable to the case on hand. The rejection of the plaint on this ground is legally unsustainable.

¶86

Further, this Court has taken note of the fact

¶87

that the plaintiff has annexed along with the plaint several documents which have not even been cursorily referred to

¶88

or examined by the learned Trial Judge. The plaintiff has produced two agreements and a registered General Power of Attorney. A plain reading of the registered GPA reveals

¶89

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

that the original owners have executed the same in favour of the plaintiff, and that it is a power coupled with interest. The recitals contained therein further indicate that the entire sale consideration has been paid. In the face of these recitals, the defendants’ alternate contention that the plaintiff, being an agent, cannot maintain the suit in his individual capacity owing to the bar under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is a complex question of fact and law which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of Order VII Rule 11. This issue necessarily requires appreciation of evidence and can only be determined in a full-fledged trial. Additionally, whether the agreement in question contemplates delivery of possession and whether the plaintiff can assert possessory rights thereunder are also matters that must be gone into during trial.

¶92

In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Judge has prematurely and erroneously applied the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 as a shortcut to non-suit the plaintiff without undertaking a proper and

¶93

14 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

holistic examination of the plaint and the documents accompanying it. The principles governing rejection of

¶97

plaints are now well crystallized.The plaint must be read as a whole, and the court must accept the averments made

¶98

therein as true for the limited purpose of determining whether a cause of action is disclosed. Upon applying this test, this Court is more than satisfied that the plaint discloses a cause of action and raises triable issues which require adjudication on merits. Therefore, the recourse to Order VII Rule 11 in the instant case is wholly unwarranted and unjustified.

¶99

In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is constrained to hold that the impugned order suffers from grave legal infirmities and is vitiated by non-application of mind. The learned Trial Judge has neither considered the plaint averments in their proper perspective nor adverted to the documents produced by the plaintiff. The impugned order, therefore, is perverse and unsustainable in law.

¶100

15 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

Accordingly, point no. (i) is answered in the affirmative and point no. (ii) is answered in the negative .

¶104

Conclusion and Reasons for Reversal

¶105

i. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, this

¶106

Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court suffer from material irregularity and non-application of judicial mind, for the following reasons:

¶107

ii. The Trial Court has erroneously invoked the bar under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act to reject the plaint. Section 41(h), which governs the grant or refusal of injunctions, cannot be treated as a statutory bar within the

¶108

meaning of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The bar under Section 41(h) is a discretionary consideration for the grant

¶109

16 -

¶110

NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

of final relief and cannot justify rejection of the plaint at

¶113

the threshold.

¶114

iii. The suit is instituted against strangers to the agreement, not the original owners. The principle that an agreement holder cannot maintain a bare injunction suit against the true owner does not apply to the facts of the present case. The learned Judge failed to appreciate this distinction, thereby committing a serious error.

¶115

iv. The plaintiff had produced two agreements and a registered General Power of Attorney, which were material to the adjudication of the plaintiff’s rights. The Trial Court has not adverted to or evaluated these documents while deciding the application. This omission has resulted in a perverse conclusion.

¶116

v. The Trial Court has misapplied the law governing rejection of plaints. The settled legal position is that the plaint must be read as a whole, and only if it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law on the face

¶117

17 -

¶118

NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

of it, can it be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. In the instant case, the plaint discloses triable issues and does not attract any express bar in law.

¶121

vii. The question as to whether the plaintiff, being an agreement holder or power of attorney holder, can maintain the suit in his individual capacity involves mixed questions of law and fact. These issues cannot be summarily decided under Order VII Rule 11 and must be examined after a full-fledged trial.

¶122

Accordingly, this Court passes the following

¶123

ORDER

¶124

i. The appeal is allowed;

¶125

ii. The judgment and decree dated 14.10.2024 passed by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gauribidanur in O.S.No.357/2024 is hereby set aside;

¶126

iii. The matter stands remitted back to the trial court;

¶127

18 -

¶128

NC: 2025:KHC:25693 RFA No. 2606 of 2024

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

iv. Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, without expecting any fresh summons at the hands of the trial court, are hereby directed to appear before the trial court on 04.08.2025.

¶131

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶132

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT: BHK

Mr. Sarwar Hussain Mir v. M/S Deone Marketing Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sarwar Hussain Mir v. M/S Deone Marketing Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pushpalatha J Jogottu Vs Sri. Lakshmisha

Hanumanthappa Vs B. Rudrappa

Rangaiah Vs Thimmakka

Ms Anne Dominic Vs Mr Samuel James Dominic

Sri Hanumanthaiah Vs Sri Thimmarayappa

Sri. S. Devendra Kumar @ Bahubali Vs Smt. G. R. Susheela