Dismissed¶69

Sri H S Vijayakumar v. Shashidhara H S

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2026RFA/2657/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Specific performance suit; plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as time-barred under Article 54 Limitation Act 1963; Karnataka HC RFA No. 2657 of 2025 upholds rejection of plaint; agreements of sale dated 10.04.2015, 05.07.2016, 09.06.2017; cancellation notice dated 05.07.2017 issued by GPA holder of executant; executant died 13.06.2018; advance of Rs.26,50,000/- on 09.06.2017; subsequent endorsement prior to cancellation; appeal rejected, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None - the appeal was rejected as devoid of merits, upholding the Trial Court's rejection of the plaint; the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of; no order as to costs. ¶69

Sri H S Vijayakumar Vs Shashidhara H S — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the appeal was rejected as devoid of merits, upholding the Trial Court's rejection of the plaint; the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for any interference?

¶56

Court's answer

The receipt of the cancellation notice is admitted in the plaint, and hence the plaintiffs had knowledge of the cancellation of the agreement by the defendants.

¶64

Ratio / Principle

The intended enforcement of the agreements by the plaintiffs in the year 2023, after receipt of the notice dated 05.07.2017 for cancellation of the agreement, is beyond the period of limitation provided under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶64

Key takeaways

The Trial Court rightly recorded the reason and held that the suit is barred by law of limitation and allowed the application for rejection of the plaint.ratio¶64
There is no error or perversity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court.ratio¶64
The alleged subsequent endorsement on the agreement dated 09.06.2017 is prior to the cancellation of the agreement, and hence there is no merit in that contention.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC by the plaintiff-appellants against the order dated 01.09.2025 on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.6/2023 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura) allowing rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of limitation. The suit sought specific performance of agreements of sale dated 10.04.2015, 05.07.2016 and 09.06.2017. The High Court held that enforcement sought in 2023, after the plaint admitted receipt of the GPA-holder's notice dated 05.07.2017 cancelling the agreement, was beyond the period under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963; found no error or perversity in the Trial Court's finding; and held that the alleged subsequent endorsement on the agreement dated 09.06.2017 preceded the cancellation. Appeal rejected; pending interlocutory application disposed of; no order as to costs. Decided 23.02.2026 by Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil JJ. (judgment per Vijaykumar A. Patil J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB RFA No. 2657 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2657 OF 2025 (SP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI H S VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O H.C. SANNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT POOJEKOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-580 024.

¶10

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI H.C. SANNASWAMY, S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT POOJEKOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-580 024.

¶13

(BY SRI SHIVARAJU M K, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

AND:

¶16

SHASHIDHARA H S, S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT T #01. S.L.V. RAYAL APARTMENT, 7^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, SUBHASH NAGARA,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB RFA No. 2657 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU-560 060.

¶21

SRI JAGADEESHA, S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.1131, 5^TH A MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶22

SRI BALAKRISHNA, S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.2220, 3^RD BLOCK, VISHVESHWARA NAGARA, BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-751 001.

¶23

SRI KIRAN H.R., S/O LATE RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.429, A LAKSHMIKANTHA NAGARA, HEBBALU, 1^ST STAGE, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 004.

¶24

SMT. SUMA, W/O SRI B.S. CHANDRAMOULI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.431, B.H. MICO LAYOUT, BOMMASANDRA, BEGURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560 099.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. USHA M S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1; SRI S.V SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI B.V KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH CHANDRA S.N, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶27

¶28

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.III IN OS.NO.6/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB RFA No. 2657 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC.

¶32

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶34

CAV JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶36

This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2025 passed in O.S.No.06/2023 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura (for short 'the Trial Court').

¶37

The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶38

The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.06/2023 seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreements of sale dated 10.04.2015, 05.07.2016 and

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB RFA No. 2657 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

09.06.2017. In the said suit, the defendant No.1 filed an application seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint was filed beyond the period of limitation. The Trial Court, on consideration of the material on record and

¶42

the provisions of law, proceeded to allow the application and rejected the plaint on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

¶43

Sri.Shivaraju M.K, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-plaintiffs submits that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application filed by the defendant No.1, without appreciating the material on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the Trial Court has failed to consider that the respondents have received an advance amount to the tune of Rs.26,50,000/- on 09.06.2017 and also executed the sharas on the rear side of the agreement of sale and acknowledged the same by affixing their signatures after the alleged cancellation. It is further submitted that the

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB RFA No. 2657 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Trial Court has failed to consider that in an application for rejection of plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be considered and the written statement or any other evidence cannot be relied on. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶48

Per contra , Smt.Usha M.S, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, Sri.S.V.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Sri.B.V.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 support the impugned order of the Trial Court and submit that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the law on the point and proceeded to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal.

¶49

We have heard the arguments of the learned

¶50

counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB RFA No. 2657 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

consideration to the submissions advanced on both the

¶55

sides.

¶56

7. The point that arises for our consideration is: "Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for any interference?"

¶57

The material on record indicates that the

¶58

plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.06/2023 seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreements of sale dated 10.04.2015, 05.07.2016 and 09.06.2017. In the said suit, the defendant No.1 filed an application seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint was filed

¶59

beyond the period of limitation. The Trial Court, on consideration of the material on record and the provisions of law, proceeded to allow the application and rejected the plaint on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. The plaintiffs sought to enforce the agreements dated 10.04.2015, 05.07.2016 and 09.06.2017. It is not in dispute that the defendant No.1, who is the General

¶60

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB RFA No. 2657 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Power of Attorney holder of the executantSri.Shivaramaiah has issued a legal notice dated

¶64

05.07.2017 for cancellation of the agreement on certain grounds. The receipt of the notice is admitted in the plaint and hence, the plaintiffs had knowledge with regard to the cancellation of the agreement in question by the defendants. The records indicate that the executant-Sri Shivaramaiaha died on 13.06.2018. The plaintiffs did not take any steps to enforce his right under the agreements in question, till 2023. In our considered view, the intended enforcement of the agreements by the plaintiffs in the year 2023 after receipt of the notice dated 05.07.2017 for the cancellation of the agreement, is beyond the period of limitation provided under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Trial Court has rightly recorded the reason and held that the suit is barred by law of limitation and allowed the application for rejection of the plaint. We do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court. The alleged

¶65

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:11160-DB RFA No. 2657 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

subsequent endorsement on the agreement dated 09.06.2017 is prior to the cancellation of the agreement.

¶68

Hence, there is no merit in such a contention.

¶69

For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.

¶70

No order as to costs.

¶71

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶72

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶73

RV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 7

Sri H S Vijayakumar v. Shashidhara H S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H S Vijayakumar v. Shashidhara H S

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

Smt Nagarathnamma N Vs State of Karnataka

Kundapura Town Planning Authority Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. B. L. Asha Vs K. Madhura

Sri M Tulasi Das Vs Sri M K Gowthamchand

The Karnataka Industrial Area Vs Sri D v Lakshman Rao

Smt Leelavathi Vs Sri B T Krishnegowda