Dismissed¶41

Sri. Krishnamurthy G N v. Sri. Munigangaiah G

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026CRP/571/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; CRP No. 571 of 2026 (IO); Lalitha Kanneganti J.; Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC; rejection of plaint; limitation as mixed question of fact and law; unregistered Release Deed dated 26.08.1956; O.S.No.171/2024; I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed and all I.As. in the petition were closed ¶41

Sri. Krishnamurthy G N Vs Sri. Munigangaiah G — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34632 CRP No. 571 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 571 OF 2026 (IO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY G.N. S/O LATE MUNIGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT SUBASH NAGARA NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL-562 123

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. MUNIGANGAIAH G., S/O LATE GANGA ARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

R/AT KULIPURA VILLAGE AND POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL -562 123

¶16

SRI GANGAIAH G S/O LATE GANGA ARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT KULIPURA VILLAGE AND POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL -562 123

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.04.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.171/2024 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA., DISMISSING THE IA NO.2 FILED UNDER

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:34632 CRP No. 571 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2026 passed in

¶27

I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.171/2024 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, whereby the trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC, the petitioner/defendant is before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/

¶29

defendant submits that the plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.171/2024 seeking a declaration that they are the absolute joint owners of the suit schedule property and a permanent injunction. It is submitted that the plaintiffs rely on an unregistered Release Deed dated 26.08.1956, executed by one Sri. Mallaiah in favour of the plaintiffs’ father. It is submitted that, as the Release Deed is of the year 1956 and the suit is filed in the year 2024, the suit is barred by limitation. Further, by an unregistered document, the right and

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34632 CRP No. 571 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

title of the property cannot be transferred. It is a compulsory registerable document, and no rights will flow from the said document. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate these aspects and dismissed the application.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The suit is filed seeking a declaration and a permanent injunction. The trial Court, having considered the contentions of both parties, observed that Order 7 Rule 11(a) to (f) of the CPC empowers the Court to reject the plaint where, from the statements made in the plaint itself, the suit appears to be barred by law. Coming to the facts of the case, the trial Court observed that the limitation aspect is a question of fact and law, and that, on the basis of

¶34

the contentions taken by the defendant alone, it is not sufficient to reject the plaint. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

¶35

In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court had rightly considered and passed the order. In the facts and circumstances of this case, limitation is a question of fact and law. The plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the plaintiffs

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:34632 CRP No. 571 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

are the absolute joint owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Release Deed dated 26.08.1956, executed by one Sri. Mallaiah in favour of the father of the plaintiffs, and they have filed a suit in the year 2024. Then, coming to the document of the year 1956, based on that, whether the rights of the property were transferred in favour of the petitioner or not? Whether he can seek a declaration or not? It will be decided by the trial Court during the course of the trial. But at this stage, this application cannot be decided by the trial Court. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed .

¶42

ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶44

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Sri. Krishnamurthy G N v. Sri. Munigangaiah G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Krishnamurthy G N v. Sri. Munigangaiah G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B v Govindraju Vs Malabar Independent

Sri. N. Nagaraj Vs Smt. Sharadamma

Chitradurga Dist Khadi Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs Smt. Sharadamma

Smt Ammayamma Vs Smt Jayalakshmi

M/S Avighna Fast Foods Vs Asha Sweet Center

Malamandi Bheema Rao Ranganatha Vs M B Venkatesh