SMT. SEETHALAKSHMI, vs SHRI GUNDEGOWDA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60644
CRP No. 100 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010095502025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100 OF 2025 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SEETHALAKSHMI,
D/O LATE VENKOBHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
HANCHARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALKURU EAST TALUK -560 049
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VARADARAJAN M.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. GUNDEGOWDA
S/O LATE G ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
MANDUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU -560 049
2. SMT. SUDHA
D/O LATE VENKATARATHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
3. SMT. PUSHPA
D/O LATE VENKATARATHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
4. SMT. SUMA
D/O LATE VENKATARATHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60644
CRP No. 100 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010095502025
RESPONDENT 2,3,4 ARE
R/AT NO.33 EWS (CTTB)
BELAVATHA EXTENSION
KESARE II STAGE, RAJENDRA NAGAR
MYSORE-07
5. SMT. R.G. SEETHA,
W/O LATE V. SRINIVASAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
6. SRI SURESH
S/O LATE V SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
7. SMT SHANTHA
D/O LATE V SRINIVASAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE
R/AT PLAN II, NHS LAYOUT
GOVINDRAJANAGAR
BENGALURU -560 079
8. THE TAHASILDAR
K R PURAM TALUK OFFICE
KRISHNARAJAPAURAM
BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 036
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. POOVAIAH M.A., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI.B.S.GURUDATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7
NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 AND R8 ARE DISPSNSED WITH
V/O/DATED: 16/09/2026)
THIS CRP FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.V IN
OS. NO. 1330/13 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU,
REJECTING THE IA NO. 5 FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(a) (b) AND (d)
R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60644
CRP No. 100 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010095502025
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
08.10.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CAV ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.5 in
OS.No.1330/2013 dated 25.10.2024 by the I Additional Civil
Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru. The defendant is
before this Court.
2. The respondent herein had filed a suit seeking a
declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful owner and is in
physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property and that he has perfected his title by prescription and
also sought for a permanent injunction. In the said suit, an
application came to be filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It
is stated that the cause of action pleaded in the plaint is
imaginary and concocted one and no substantial materials were
stated in the pleadings. Apart from the said fact, the plaintiff
had knowledge of the proceedings, as he was the petitioner
before the Deputy Commissioner under the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act. The plaintiff has come on record and prosecuted
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60644
CRP No. 100 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010095502025
the case after the death of his father in 2004. The said case
was disposed of on merits in his presence by rejecting his claim
of tenancy. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that he had
knowledge of the proceedings, however, this material fact has
been suppressed by him. The plaintiff's contention was that he
and his late father were tenants in respect of the suit schedule
property and sought occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal
(Special Deputy Commissioner) rejected the claim under the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The authorities considered his
claim on merits and rejected the application. Neither the
plaintiff nor his late father was a tenant in respect of the suit
schedule property. The plaintiff stated that the suit schedule
property was not the subject matter of the tenanted land. The
Land Tribunal rejected his claim of tenancy. Hence, once the
plaintiff fails to establish his right under the special enactment
namely, the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, he cannot maintain
the civil suit to re-adjudicate the issue in question. The alleged
averment in the plaint that RTC stands in their name is also
negatived in view of the order passed by the competent
authority under the Land Reform act. The plaintiff cannot once
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60644
CRP No. 100 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010095502025
again seek to re-adjudicate the same right before the Civil
Court. The order of the Tribunal has attained finality.
3. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to retry the issue
once again. Admittedly, the RTC record does not confer any
right whatsoever. The defendants rebutted the presumption
under law before the authorities, and the plaintiff failed to
prove his tenancy based on the alleged entries made in the
RTC. In view of the findings recorded by the revenue
authorities, the alleged possession is not proved. The allegation
that the plaintiff’s father entered into an agreement of sale with
late Venkoba Rao dated 02.10.1985 in respect of the suit
schedule property is also untenable. The recitals of the said
document do not show that possession was given under the
said alleged document produced by the plaintiff himself. Hence,
the claim of any alleged right/possession does not arise under
law. The plaintiff has also filed an amendment application,
seeking to treat the suit as one for specific performance of the
alleged contract, to which the defendant filed an objection,
opposing the said application on the grounds of limitation,
inadmissibility of the document, and other grounds. The
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60644
CRP No. 100 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010095502025
plaintiff's conduct clearly establishes that, in his own pleadings,
he is speculating on monetary benefit by filing false and
frivolous litigation, as he never had any semblance of right or
possession over the suit property. The suit filed by the plaintiff
is not maintainable; the court fee paid is insufficient. As such,
the plaint is liable to be rejected.
4. The trial court by order impugned, had rejected the
application. While rejecting the application, the court observed
that the burden of proving adverse possession lies upon the
person who is claiming such a defense under the Limitation Act
of 1963. To prove the adverse possession, plaintiff would need
to prove the date from which the property was under their
adverse possession, from which the 12 years are going to be
calculated. They are also required to prove the date from which
the adverse possession of the property came to the knowledge
of the owner. They also need to specify the date from which the
possession of the property came to the knowledge of
immediate neighbours. They are required to prove that the
possession of the property was peaceful. It should not be
possessed by coercing the owner and should be in opposition to
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60644
CRP No. 100 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010095502025
what the owner expects. The person making a claim also needs
to prove before the court that the property owner, despite
having knowledge of the possession, did not take any action
against the possessor. Therefore, to prove the above aspects it
needs a full-fledged trial. The trial court further observed that
the suit shall not be rejected based on the allegations made by
the defendants either in the written statement or application;
the Court shall look into only the plaint averments and
accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby the
defendant is before this court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the trial court grossly erred in holding that the
matter requires evidence, without appreciating that, when the
plaint averment discloses that the plaintiff is claiming title and
possession of the suit property under a sale agreement as well
as in the capacity of the tenant, then there cannot be any
cause of action to seek the relief of adverse possession. Trial
Court failed to appreciate the plaint averments, which disclosed
that the plaintiff is tracing his title and possession over the suit
property to the sale agreement as well as to the tenancy rights
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60644
CRP No. 100 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010095502025
and that in such cases, the question of adverse possession does
not arise and therefore, there was no cause of action for the
suit in which the relief of adverse possession is claimed. The
trial court has failed to appreciate that the bundle of facts as
pleaded in the plaint did not afford any cause of action for the
plaintiff to seek the relief of perfection of title by adverse
possession. The trial court failed to appreciate that once the
plaintiff traced his title and possession to the sale agreement
and the tenancy, there can be no animus possidendi, i.e., an
intention to possess the property adverse to the interest of the
owners. Hence, the court ought to have rejected the plaint. It is
submitted that the order impugned needs to be set aside and
the plaint has to be rejected.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that trial court had rightly considered and rightly
dismissed the application. It is submitted that while rejecting
the plaint, the court cannot look into the case of the defendant
and the document that are filed. It is submitted that the
defendant had failed to show sufficient reasons to reject the
plaint.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60644
CRP No. 100 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010095502025
7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the material on record. At the stage of considering an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the court must
meaningfully read the plaint as a whole and determine whether
the facts pleaded disclose the cause of action and demonstrate
the statutory bar. This exercise does not permit an assessment
of the probable outcome of the suit by considering competing
factual explanations, and at the same time a bare assertion of
ownership or adverse possession cannot substantiate the
material facts. In the case of Kum. Geetha, D/O Late
1
Krishna vs Nanjundaswamy . The Supreme Court reiterated
both the requirement of examining the plaint in its entirety and
the prohibition against its partial rejection. The defendant's
objection concerning the agreement to purchase is substantial.
A person who seeks a conveyance ordinarily recognise the
proposed vendor's ownership. Here, the plaintiff pleads not only
the agreement and payment of a consideration but also his
father's readiness and willingness, the request for conveyance
in 1986 and the owner's promise to execute the sale deed. An
agreement to sell does not itself transfer ownership. Further,
1
2023 Online SC 1407
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60644
CRP No. 100 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010095502025
possession continued under such an agreement does not
become adverse merely because the conveyance is not
executed or the owner subsequently becomes unavailable.
2
In Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar & Anr the Supreme
Court explained the necessity of an independent hostile
assertion where possession is referred to an agreement to
purchase. Nevertheless the plaint cannot be read as alleging
that the possession commenced under the agreement of 1985.
Paragraph No. 3 of the plaint expressly refers possession to an
alleged enforcement in 1973 and asserts its open and
continuous character and the owner's knowledge. The plaintiff
also asserts acquisition of title by prescription through his
father's possession. Whether these averments establish the
necessary hostile character and statutory duration and how the
subsequent agreement affects that assertion or material on
which the plaintiff bears the burden. The agreement presents a
serious obstacle to the declaration sought, but that obstacle
cannot be converted into a finding that the plaint, in its entirely
does not disclose of a cause of action. The claim of injunction
requires separate consideration. Paragraph No.11 and 12
2
1996 SCC (1) 639
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60644
CRP No. 100 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010095502025
alleges attempts by the defendants to change the revenue
records, negotiate the sale, and take over the property. The
plaintiff identifies an incident dated 02.08.2013, and pleads
apprehended interference with his possession. These
allegations must be considered together with asserted long-
standing cultivation and continued possession. The plaintiff's
entitlement to protection, if any, and the permissible scope of
the protection remains to be decided. Protection of established
possession against unlawful dispossession is distinct from a
declaration of ownership and does not prevent the true owner
from pursuing the available remedies in law. Thus, even if the
plaintiff has difficulty establishing title by adverse possession,
the allegation supporting the prayer for injunction cannot be
rejected at the threshold.
8. The plaint contains both an assertion of possession and
an alleged threatened interference. Whether these allegations
are true is not presently open for determination. Rejection of
the entire plaint cannot follow merely from the apparent
weakness of the declaration claim. The disclosure of
OS.No.590/2006, although relevant, does not establish that the
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60644
CRP No. 100 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010095502025
suit is liable for rejection. The plaintiff acknowledged that the
property is included in the family partition proceedings and that
his mother, brother and sister share possession. Those
averments weaken his claim to exclusive ownership. The
representation of the other person's interest in the property
and the relief can ultimately be decided by the court. However,
the mere pendency of the partition suit does not demonstrate
that the claim against the original owner's successors is barred.
Any question concerning necessary parties or other pending
proceedings must be considered at an appropriate stage. The
reference to the Form 7A application and paragraph No.10
described the tenancy proceedings as pending, whereas
paragraph No.12 refers to their closure. However, there is no
clarity as to those proceedings. The defendant stated that they
are closed. No documents were filed along with the plaint.
Hence, at this stage, the Court cannot go into that issue, as it
cannot look into the defendant's case and the documents filed
by him while considering an application under Order VII Rule
11 of CPC. In the light of the above discussion, the Trial Court
has rightly held that the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60644
CRP No. 100 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010095502025
and that requires evidence. In the light of the above discussion,
this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well-considered
order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing
the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed
ii. Pending I.As, if any, in the petition shall
stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
TS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
*AK