Sri G M Raveendra Vs Sri Gangarangaiah

BOTH ARE R/AT SRI LAKSHMIRANGANATHA NILAYA, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, AGALAKUPPE ROAD, DABASPETE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI.GANGARANGAIAH S/O. LATE PUTTARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶17

SRI GANGARAJU S/O. GANGARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶18

SMT. GANGAMMA D/O. GANGARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:28377 CRP No. 889 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SRI VASU S/O. GANGARANGALAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶23

SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA D/O. GANGARANGALAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶24

SRI NAVEEN KUMAR D.G. S/O. GANGARANGALAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶25

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT DODDASARANGI PALYA, GULURU HOBLI,

¶26

TUMKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101

¶27

SRI SIDDARAJU S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶28

SRI RANGASWAMY K. S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶29

SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA D/O. LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶30

SMT. GANGALAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE RANGASWAMAIAH P., AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶31

SRI SRIDHAR KUMAR S/O. LATE RANGASWAMAIAH P., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶32

SMT. R. RASHMI D/O. LATE RANGASWAMAIAH P., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28377 CRP No. 889 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

KUM. SIDDAGANGAMMA D/O. LATE RANGASWAMAIAH P., AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶36

SRI RANGANATH S/O. LATE RANGASWAMAIAH P. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶37

RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 14 ARE R/AT SOMPURA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123

¶38

SRI M.K. NAGARAJU S/O. KEMPAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶39

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI D/O. RAMANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶40

SMT. DEEPA V. W/O. M.G. NATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶41

RESPONDETNS 15 TO 17 ARE R/AT MACHONAYAKANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123

¶42

SRI M. VISHWANATHA S/O. LATE HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT DANOJIPALYA, ARISHINAKUNTE DHAKALE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

¶43

SRI H. KUMAR S/O. LATE HONNAIAH,

¶44

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28377 CRP No. 889 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KEMPALINGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123

¶47

SRI CHANNAMAHIMA S/O SREERANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. 82/85, CHANNAPPA EXTENSION, NARAYANAPPA LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 123

¶48

SRI G. MANJUNATHA S/O GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT YARRANAPALYA NIDAVANDA POST, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 123

¶49

SRI R. SRINIVAS S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.82, PWD QUARTERS, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE, SIRSI TOWN, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT- 560 073

¶50

SRI A. NAGESH S/O. B. ANNADANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKABIDARAKALLU, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU- 560 073

¶51

SRI M.G. NATARAJU S/O. GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28377 CRP No. 889 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

R/AT MACHONAYAKANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -560 073

¶55

SRI G. DEVARAJU S/O. T.A. GANGARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.987, 6TH CROSS, 'B' BLOCK, VIJAYANANDA NAGAR, NANDINI EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 096.

¶56

SRI NARANASWAMY A.R. S/O. LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, 4TH MAIN ROAD, SYNDICATE BANK LAYOUT, HEROHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶57

SMT. P. SUDHAMANI W/O. H. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT KEMPALINGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 123

¶58

SRI D.R. JAYARAM S/O. LATE K. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT DABASPETE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶59

SMT. SOWMYA M.S. W/O. YOGANANDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT KASARAGHATTA, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 123

¶60

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28377 CRP No. 889 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O. M.R. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT MADALAKOTE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 123

¶63

SMT. RAMALAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE H.R. RANASHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT HOSAPALYA, SHIVAGANGE DHAKALE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 123

¶64

SRI LINGARAJ K.G. S/O. GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶65

SRI AKHIL L. S/O. LINGARAJ J.G., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.476/1, 8^TH CROSS, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI NAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI, NEAR CHANDRAGIRI BAR, VISHWANEEDAM, BENGALURU -562 110

¶66

SRI BASAVARAJU S/O. LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT RAYARAPALYA, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 123

¶67

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.R.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R4, R6, R11 AND R14)

¶68

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28377 CRP No. 889 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/10/2025 PASSED IN IA NO.II IN OS NO.1140/2022 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA., REJECTING IA NO.11 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a,b, and d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶71

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

¶72

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶73

ORAL ORDER

¶74

Aggrieved by the order passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.1140/2022 dated 08.10.2025, the defendants are before this Court.

¶75

The respondent Nos.1 to 14, who are the plaintiffs in the suit have filed O.S.No.1140/2022 seeking the relief to declare the registered GPA executed in favour of defendant No.1 as null and void and also the sale transaction that took place based on the said GPA are also null and void and also sought for the consequential relief of injunction. The defendants have filed their application under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) & (d) read with Section 151 CPC to reject the plaint having barred by limitation and also stated that the suit is filed with an

¶76

8 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:28377 CRP No. 889 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

imaginary cause of action that came to be rejected by the trial Court by order impugned.

¶80

Defendant Nos.2 to 5, 7 to 15 and 17 to 21 have filed I.A to reject the plaint. It is stated that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title and cancellation of the registered General Power of Attorney dated 19.11.2007, after lapse of 15 years, hence the suit is hit by law of limitation. It is stated that plaintiffs have admitted the execution and registration of the GPA in favour of the defendant No.1 in para 8 and 9 of the plaint. It is stated that the plaintiffs have admitted that Item Nos.1 and 2 got converted for the use of residential purpose. At para 11 they have agreed execution and registration of the sale deed by duly appointing Power of Attorney Holder in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 by the sale deed dated 18.08.2012 and in para 13 of the of the plaint, they have admitted execution and registration of the sale deed dated 13.11.2012 in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 and

¶81

duly appointed Power of Attorney Holder. But plaintiffs have not questioned the sale deed till date. Therefore, the suit filed after more than 10 years from the date of the sale deeds dated

¶82

9 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:28377 CRP No. 889 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

18.08.2012 and 13.11.2012, is hit by law of limitation. It is submitted that GPA of 2007 cannot be questioned after lapse of 15 years from its execution and as such plaint has to be rejected.

¶86

The trial Court by order impugned has rejected the I.A that is filed. The Court has observed that the plaintiffs contended that they had signed a document on 06.11.2007 under the bona-fide belief that it was an agreement of sale pertaining to 10 guntas of land. Subsequently, they discovered that a registered General Power of Attorney dated 19.11.2007 had been created purportedly executed in favour of defendant No.1, conferring extensive powers and relating to about 2 acres of land. The plaintiffs allege that the said GPA was fabricated, forged and falsely registered by defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5, who took advantage of the plaintiff’s illiteracy, and on the strength of this fraudulent instrument, several sale transactions were effected between the year 2012 and 2021. The Court has also considered the judgment of Chhotanben Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 422 and held that whether fraud was discovered is a question of fact. The

¶87

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:28377 CRP No. 889 of 2025

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

plaint in the present case specifically pleads that the plaintiffs discovered the alleged fraudulent registration only in or about 2022, lodged a police complaint on 08.02.2022, and that an actual attempt at dispossession occurred on 01.01.2022. These averments are sufficient to show that the cause of action arose within the limitation period as pleaded. On these grounds, the Court has come to the conclusion that the suit cannot be dismissed and it has to be decided after a full-fledged trial.

¶90

Then as far as the second issue with regard to insufficiency of Court fee is concerned, the Court has observed that the rejection of plaint on this ground arises only when the Court directs a plaintiff to correct the valuation or make good the deficit Court Fee within a specified time, and the plaintiff fails to comply. In the present case, no such order has been passed. Therefore, the question of rejecting the plaint on this ground does not arise, and issue of valuation and sufficiency of Court Fee is to be decided in the suit by framing appropriate issues. The Court has further observed that the defendants have failed to satisfy the Court that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a),(b) or (d) of the CPC. The

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:28377 CRP No. 889 of 2025

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

objections raised by the applicants raise disputed questions of

¶95

fact and mixed questions of law and fact which are not amenable to adjudication on a summary application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, rejected the I.A.

¶96

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners/defendants has raised the contentions that were raised before the trial Cwourt and these contentions are extracted above in affidavit filed in support of the I.A. It is submitted that with regard to cancellation GPA of 2007, there cannot be a suit in the year 2022 and it is barred by limitation. The trial Court had failed to consider all these aspects in the light of the judgment that was relied on by the counsel for the petitioners.

¶97

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶98

Caveat/respondent Nos.1,4,6,11 and 14 submits that the trial Court had rightly held that the grounds that are raised by the petitioners cannot be considered in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Those issues can be delved by the Court at the time of trial and there are no grounds to interfere with a well considered order passed by the trial Court.

¶99

12 -

¶100

NC: 2026:KHC:28377 CRP No. 889 of 2025

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

¶103

perused the material on record. The suit is filed seeking a declaration that GPA executed in the year 2007 is not binding. According to the plaintiffs, the said document has come into existence fraudulently and they were not aware of the same and once they came to know about it, there was a threat of disposition and they have given a police complaint. Basing on this factual matrix, a suit was filed in the year 2022. The trial Court has considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chhotanben case referred supra that the period of limitation ordinarily begins on the date of discovery of the fraud and that whether fraud was discovered earlier is a question of fact. That can only be decided by the trial Court after the evidence is adduced. With regard to the issue of fraud and knowledge, the trial Court cannot decide an application basing on the pleadings in the written statement or in the objections. The trial Court has rightly considered and rejected the I.A that

¶104

is filed seeking rejection of the plaint. Even on the issue of Court Fee, the trial Court has rightly considered and rejected the case of the defendants. In that view of the matter, this

¶105