Dismissed¶110

Sannamma v. H Annappa @ Annappashetty

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2026RFA/2601/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

None; the trial Court's order dated 18.09.2025 rejecting the plaint was upheld and the regular first appeal was dismissed. ¶110

Sannamma Vs H Annappa @ Annappashetty — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the trial Court's order dated 18.09.2025 rejecting the plaint was upheld and the regular first appeal was dismissed.

¶110

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.282/2022 disclosed a true cause of action or was a mischievous, cleverly drafted plaint liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC. +2 more

¶78

Court's answer

While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments are to be looked into and not the defendants' contentions; a plaint cleverly drafted to overcome questions of limitation or a settled position of fact or law may be gone into to ascertain its true intent, and if mischievous, the Court should not hesitate to reject it under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, as held in T. Arivandandam's case.

¶93

Ratio / Principle

The sale deeds dated 11.05.1994 and 13.05.1994 reveal a reference to the sale deed dated 21.10.1959 executed by Smt.Rangamma and Sri.Thimmegowda; it is more than apparent that the plaintiffs lost their title to the suit property in 1959 itself and therefore could not have filed a suit for declaration of their title in 2022.

¶103

Key takeaways

Though the plaintiffs were not parties to the 1959 transaction, their predecessors were; the plaintiffs cannot claim that they had no notice or knowledge of the transaction, since it is their predecessors who executed the sale deed dated 21.10.1959 consequent to which defendants Nos.2 and 3 conveyed the property to defendant No.1. The plea of knowledge gained only a year before filing does not make the suit maintainable or save it from limitation.ratio¶104
The plaint was cleverly drafted by the plaintiffs to create an illusion of a cause of action; the trial Court was justified in tearing the veil and holding that there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration of their title; hence there is no error in the rejection of the plaint warranting interference in the appeal.ratio¶109

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (R. Nataraj J., oral judgment dated 13.03.2026) dismissed RFA No.2601 of 2025 (INJ) under Section 96 CPC, filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.282/2022 (II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan) challenging the order dated 18.09.2025 allowing IA No.IV under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act and rejecting their plaint. The plaintiffs, claiming title through Smt.Rangamma (grantee of 30.06.1946, died 06.03.1976), sought declaration of ownership of 2 acres in Sy.No.409, Manachanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk, and a declaration that the sale deeds dated 11.05.1994 and 13.05.1994 executed by defendants Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 were not binding, pleading that they learnt of the transactions only about a year before filing (Article 59, Limitation Act; reliance on P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan, (2025) 4 S.C.R. 2006, urged by counsel). Held: (i) on an Order VII Rule 11 application only plaint averments are examined, and a cleverly drafted, mischievous plaint may be rejected (T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Sathyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, endorsed); (ii) the 1994 sale deeds recite the sale deed dated 21.10.1959 by Smt.Rangamma and Sri.Thimmegowda, so the plaintiffs lost title in 1959 and could not sue for declaration in 2022; (iii) as successors of the executants, the plaintiffs cannot plead ignorance of the transaction; (iv) the plaint created an illusion of cause of action and the trial Court was justified in tearing the veil. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2601 OF 2025 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SANNAMMA W/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS,

¶8

MEENAKSHI W/O LATE RAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶9

ABHISHEK M.R. S/O LATE RAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶10

MALLIGAMMA, W/O LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally

¶12

signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

JYOTHI

¶14

W/O MADHU M.S.

¶15

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶16

JAYASHREE W/O H.Y. PRAKASH,

¶17

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶18

ASHA

¶19

W/O CHETHAN,

¶20

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶21

R/AT HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDURU HOBLI, ALURU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573128

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

VIJAYA

¶25

W/O SHIVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶26

LAKSHMI W/O SURESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶27

APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 6, 8 AND 9 ARE R/O MANCHANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201

¶28

…APPELLANTS

¶29

(BY SRI. RAVI M.M., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

H ANNAPPA @ ANNAPPASHETTY S/O H.J. HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O MANCHANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573701

¶32

H.G. THIMMAPPA @ THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA DEAD BY LRS

¶33

H.T. MANJUNATHA, S/O H.G. THIMMAPPA @ THIMMEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS,

¶34

2. SHIVAMMA

¶35

W/O H.T. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.13A, "RAJAGOWRI NILAYA", 27^TH CROSS ROAD, 1^ST ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGARA, HASSAN-573201

¶36

SHILPA, D/O H.T. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.13A, "RAJAGOWRI NILAYA",

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

27^TH CROSS ROAD, 1^ST ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGARA, HASSAN-573201

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. MOHAN P S., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶43

VIDE ORDER DATED 21.11.2025 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 D/W)

¶44

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.IV IN OS NO.282/2022 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN, ALLOWING THE IA NO. IV FILED U/O 7 RULE 11 OF CPC R/W SEC. 5 OF LIMITATION ACT FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶45

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶46

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶47

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶48

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.282/2022 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 18.09.2025, by which, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as ‘CPC’) read with Section 5 of Limitation Act.

¶49

The parties shall henceforth be referred as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The suit in O.S.No.282/2022 was filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property and for a declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.1 is not binding upon them and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit schedule property. The suit property was land in Sy.No.409 of Manachanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk, measuring 2 acres out of 4 acres 22 guntas.

¶54

(i) The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property belonged to Smt.Rangamma, who is the mother-in-law of the plaintiff No.1 and the grandmother of other plaintiff. They claimed that the suit property was granted to Smt.Rangamma on 30.06.1946 and an endorsement was issued on 23.12.1960 by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru Division. The plaintiffs claimed that Smt.Rangamma was illiterate and that she died on 06.03.1976. They claimed that her only son Sri.Thimmegowda and the plaintiffs succeeded to the estate of Smt.Rangamma and that they are in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

(ii) The plaintiffs claimed that about a year prior to the filing of the suit, they proposed to partition the properties and when they secured the documents, they found that the names of the defendants were entered in the revenue records. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants in collusion with the revenue authorities had got their names entered in the records. They also found from the antecedent documents that the defendants had created some documents and on that basis, they had got their names entered in the revenue records. They claimed that they met the defendant No.1 and came to know about an illegal Khatha and an illegal sale deed brought about in respect of the suit property.

¶59

(iii) They therefore requested the defendant No.1 to cancel the sale deed and to ensure that the name of Smt.Rangamma is restored in the revenue records. However, the defendant No.1, allegedly, refused to accept the request of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim that the plaintiff No.1 is illiterate and Smt.Rangamma was also illiterate and not worldly wise. The plaintiffs claimed that they were under the impression that the suit property continued in their name. The plaintiffs further claimed that the defendants colluding with

¶60

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

revenue authorities had brought about an unconscionable sale deed and that they do not have any right, title or interest in the suit property.

¶63

(iv) They further claimed that the defendants Nos.2 and 3 had executed a sale deed dated 11.05.1994, conveying the suit property to the defendant No.1 and that they had no right, title or interest to do so. Therefore, they claimed that the sale deed executed by the defendants Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the defendant No.1 did not bind their interest. They further claimed that defendant No.1 got his name entered in respect of 4 acres 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.409/P31, though he had sale deed only for 2 acres. Therefore, they contended that the defendant No.1 is only entitled to 2 acres of land. Based on these contentions, the plaintiffs sought for the aforementioned reliefs.

¶64

The suit was contested by the defendant No.1, who denied the contentions urged in the plaint and claimed that the suit property was granted to Venkategowda @ Dasaiah and that he died leaving behind his wife and his son Sri.Thimmegowda. Later, Smt.Rangamma and Sri.Thimmegowda sold the suit property to the defendant No.2 on 21.10.1959 and handed over

¶65

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

possession of the suit property. He claimed that half portion of the suit property measuring 1 acre was conveyed to him in terms of a sale deed dated 11.05.1994 and another 1 acre was conveyed to him in terms of a sale deed dated 13.05.1994. He claimed that from the day of such purchase he was in lawful possession of the suit property and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was mischievous and not maintainable and there was no cause of action for filing a suit. Based on these contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues:

¶68

"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners and in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property ?

¶69

2) Whether the plaintiffs proves the alleged interference made by the defendants ?

¶70

3) Whether plaintiffs prove that the Sale deed executed by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 is not binding upon their interest in the suit schedule property ?

¶71

4) Whether defendant No.1 proves that suit is not properly valued and Court fee paid is insufficient ?

¶72

5) Whether defendant No.1 proves that suit in present form is not maintainable as contended in para.28 of his written statement ?

¶73

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

6) Whether defendant No.1 proves that suit is barred by law of limitation ?

¶76

7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for?

¶77

8) What order or decree?"

¶78

Later, the defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground there was no cause of action for the suit and the one mentioned in the suit was a case of clever drafting and that the suit was highly belated. The said application was contested by the plaintiffs, who contended that they had no knowledge about the sale deed dated 21.10.1959 and hence, the plaint cannot be rejected, as limitation is a mixed question of fact and law.

¶79

The trial Court after perusing the material on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had acknowledged that the suit property was conveyed by Smt.Rangamma and Sri.Thimmegowda in favour of defendant No.2 and thereafter defendant Nos.2 and 3 conveyed the suit property to defendant No.1 in the year 1994. Consequently, the trial Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Sathyapal and Another - (1977) 4 SCC 467, and

¶80

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

held that the suit was mischievous and designed to disturb a sale deed executed in the year 1959 and that the plaintiffs had no cause of action as the predecessors of the plaintiffs had already conveyed the suit property and consequently, held that the application filed by the defendant No.1 merited consideration and accordingly, allowed the said application and rejected the plaint in terms of the order dated 18.09.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal.

¶83

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs were not aware of the execution of the sale deed dated 21.10.1959 and the consequent execution of the sale deed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 on 11.05.1994 and 13.05.1994. He contends that the plaintiffs are still in possession of the suit property and therefore, the trial Court could not have rejected the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose cause of action and that the suit was barred by limitation. He invited the attention of the Court to Article 59 of the Limitation Act and contended that limitation to file a suit commences from the date the parties had knowledge of the transaction and in the instant case, he contends that the

¶84

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

plaintiffs came to know of the transaction only a year prior to the filing of the suit and therefore, the suit was not beyond limitation as contended. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.Kumarakurubaran v. P.Narayanan and Others - (2025) 4 S.C.R. 2006.

¶87

Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 has submitted that the plaintiffs have specifically mentioned about the sale deed brought about by their predecessors, namely Sri.Thimmegowda and Smt.Rangamma and the consequent sale by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the defendant No.1 on 11.05.1994 and 13.05.1994. He contends that the plaintiffs lost title to the suit property in the year 1959 itself and have now filed the mischievous suit after nearly 63 years from the date of the sale dated 21.10.1959. He therefore contends that the plaint ex-facie was mischievous and was a product of clever drafting. He therefore contends that the trial Court was right in holding that there was no subsisting cause of action for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration of their title to the suit property and for declaration

¶88

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

that the sale deed executed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in

¶91

favour of defendant No.1 was not binding upon them.

¶92

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendant No.1.

¶93

It is now well settled that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, it is only the plaint averments that has to be looked into and not the contentions urged by the defendants in their written statement or in the application for rejecting the plaint. It is also well settled that a plaint which is cleverly drafted to overcome questions of limitation or overcome a settled position of fact or law could be gone into by the Court to ascertain the true intent and purport of filing the suit and if it is mischievous in nature, the Court should not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject such mischievous plaints as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in T. Arivandandam's case referred supra.

¶94

A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiffs are claiming title to the suit property through their predecessor, Smt.Rangamma. They also contend that they are in possession

¶95

12 -

¶96

NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

of the suit property ever since the date of death of Smt.Rangamma and her son Sri.Thimmegowda. However, not a piece of document was produced before the trial Court to justify the same. Be that as it may, they contend that they proposed to partition the property a year prior to the filing of the suit and when they checked the documents, they came to know that the name of the defendant No.1 was entered in the revenue records and thereafter, they checked and found that some transactions were entered into between the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit property. It was on that premise, the plaintiffs claim that they are not bound by the sale deed executed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the defendant No.1 and hence sought for declaration of their title to the suit schedule property.

¶99

A perusal of the sale deeds dated 11.05.1994 and 13.05.1994 reveals a reference to the sale deed dated 21.10.1959 executed by Smt.Rangamma and Sri.Thimmegowda. The sale deeds dated 11.05.1994 and 13.05.1994 also show that the possession of the property was delivered by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the defendant No.1. Therefore, it is more than apparent that the

¶100

13 -

¶101

NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

plaintiffs had lost their title to the suit property in the year 1959 itself and therefore, they could not have filed a suit for declaration of their title in the year 2022, that too after the sale deeds were executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.4 on 11.05.1994 and 13.05.1994.

¶104

In that view of the matter, the trial Court has rightly gone into the question whether the plaintiffs have made out a cause of action for filing the suit for declaration of their title. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that limitation for seeking declaration commences from the date, the plaintiffs have knowledge of the transaction, it is relevant to note that though the plaintiffs were not parties to the transaction but their predecessors were. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim that they had no notice or knowledge of the transaction as it is their predecessors, who had executed the sale deed on 21.10.1959, consequent to which, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 have conveyed the property to the defendant No.1.

¶105

In that view of the matter, the plaintiffs cannot contend that they came to know of the transaction only a year

¶106

14 -

¶107

NC: 2026:KHC:15079 RFA No. 2601 of 2025

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

prior to the filing of the suit and contend that the suit is maintainable and not barred by the law of limitation. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the defendant No.1, the plaint was cleverly drafted by the plaintiffs to create an illusion of a cause of action and the trial Court was justified in tearing the veil and holding that there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration of their title. Hence, there is no error committed by the trial Court in rejecting the plaint warranting interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal

¶110

is dismissed .

¶111

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶112

BKN

¶113

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Sannamma v. H Annappa @ Annappashetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sannamma v. H Annappa @ Annappashetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri v Ananda Vs Smt. Sachi Agarwal

N. Chaithanya Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

Dr M S Dinakar Vs Hennur Banaswadi Cosmopolitan Club (Regd)

Gokulan K Vs G Angu @ Anguswamy

Gokulan K Vs G Angu @ Anguswamy

The Commissioner Vs Sri. S. Durgaprasad