M/S. SUSHRUTHA VISHRANTHI DHAMA PVT LTD vs RINNY EAPEN
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 318 OF 2024 (IO)
C/W
REVIEW PETITION NO. 486 OF 2025
REVIEW PETITION NO. 543 OF 2025
IN CRP No. 318/2024
BETWEEN:
M/S SUSHRUTHA VISHRANTHI
DHAMA PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO. 22, RASTREEYA VIDYALAYA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE -560 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
AND ALSO AT
SY.NO.18/4 THALAGHATTAPURA,
UTTARAHALLI, MANAVARTHE KAVAL
UTARAHARHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT.NALINA MAYEGOWDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
MS.ANUSHA B. REDDY, ADVOCATE, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
AND:
1. DR.M.P.SOMAPRASAD
S/O MR M.K.PRABHAKAHARAN
AGED ABOUT 72 YEAR
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO 12,
MANTRI ALTIUS
NO 17, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD
BANGALORE -560 051
2. MR.RINNY EAPEN
S/O LATE P.K.EAPEN
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
NO 570, 3RD BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE -560 034
3. MR.P.G.ALEXANDER
S/O MR.GEORGE
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
NO 16, SRINIDHI TEMPLE STREET,
CHUCHANAGHATTA,
DODAKALLASANDRA POST,
BANGALORE -560 062
4. DR R.SUBBARAO
S/O DR S.V.RAMARAO
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
NO 1631/1, DHATREE,
32ND CROSS, BSK 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE -560 070
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.G.RAGHAVAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI.K.B.S.MANIAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2
V/O/DATED:03/09/2026, NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 ARE
DISPENSED WITH)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 22.01.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.4 IN OS
NO.472/2019 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU,
REJECTING THE IA NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a)
AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
IN RP NO. 486/2025
BETWEEN:
RINNY EAPEN (LATE)
S/O LATE PK EAPEN
BY HIS LRS
RICKY EAPEN
S/O LATE RINNY RAPEN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RD
R/A NO. 570, 3 BLOCK
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU -560 034
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.B.S.MANIAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. M.P. SOMAPRASAD
S/O M.K.PRABHAKARAN
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/A MANTRI ALTUS
NO.17, RAJ BHANAN ROAD
BANGALORE- 560 051
2. DR. R.SUBBA RAO
S/O DR. S.V. RAMARAO
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/A NO. 1631/ DHATREE
ND ND
32 CROSS, BSK 2 STAGE
BANGALORE -560 070
4. M/S SUSHRUTHA VISHRANTI DHAMA P. LTD.,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.202
RASHTREEYA VIDYALAYA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE -560 004
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
ALSO AT SY.NO.18/4
UTTARAHALLI MANAVARTHE KAVAL THALAGHATTAPURA
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT -560 061
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.G.RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SMT.GAYATHRI B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION.114 R/W
ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
SAID IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 05.04.2024 PASSED IN
CRP NO.131/2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN RP NO. 543/2025
BETWEEN:
M/S. SUSHRUTHA VISHRANTHI DHAMA
PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SY. NO. 18/4, THALAGHATTAPURA,
UTTARAHALLI, MANAVARTHE KAVAL,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 109
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
MS.NILIMA KADAMBI
W/O VIVEK KADAMBI,
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GAYATHRI B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RINNY EAPEN
S/O LATE P.K. EAPEN
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
NO.570, 3RD BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU -560 034
2. DR. M.P. SOMAPRASAD
S/O M.K. PRABHAKARAN
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO.12, MANTRI ALTIUS
NO.17, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD,
BENGALURU -560 051
3. DR. R.SUBBA RAO (SINCE DECEASED)
S/O DR. S.V. RAMARAO
AGED 77 YEARS
NO.1631/1, DHATREE
32ND CROSS, BSK II STAGE
BENGALURU -560 070
3.1. P.G.ALEXANDER (SINCE DECEASED)
S/O GEOARGENO. 16,
SRINIDHE TEMPLE STREET.
CHUNCHAGAGHATTA
DODDAKALLASANDRA POST
BENGALURU
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.B.S.MANIAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI.K.G.RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2
R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE FINAL ORDER
DATED 05.04.2024 PASSED IN CRP NO.131/2024 BY THIS
HON’BLE COURT (ANNEXURE – A).
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 05.10.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CAV ORDER
The respondent herein who is the plaintiff has filed
O.S.No.472/2019 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, seeking declaration
that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule
properties; a declaration that the three registered Sale Deeds
dated 09.10.2001, 22.12.2001, and 22.12.2001, made and
executed by defendant No.2 alleged GPA holder of the plaintiff,
in favor of defendant No. 1 with regard to the suit schedule
properties, are void, invalid, bogus, sham, nominal, fabricated,
and fraudulent documents and they do not confer or convey
any valid or lawful right, title, interest, or possession of the suit
schedule properties in favor of defendant No.1 and that they
are not binding on the plaintiff in any manner. Further,
declaration that the registered Sale Deed dated 03.10.2005,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
made and executed by defendant No.1 in Favor of defendant
No.4 is void, invalid, bogus, sham, nominal, and fraudulent,
and that it does not confer or convey any valid and lawful right,
title, or possession of the suit schedule properties in favour of
defendant No.4 and that it is not binding on the plaintiff.
Further, a direction to the defendant No.4 to hand over and
deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule
properties in favor of the plaintiff within a time to be fixed by
the Court.
2. In the said suit, defendant Nos.1 and 4 have filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking
rejection of the plaint. That application was dismissed by the
trial Court. Against that, defendant No.1 filed
CRP.No.131/2024, and defendant No.4 had filed
CRP.No.318/2024. CRP.No.131/2024, filed by defendant No.1
was dismissed by order dated 05.04.2024, without notice to the
defendant No.4. At paragraph No.16 of that order, the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court observed that, in relation to
defendant No. 4, the proviso to Section 17 of the Limitation Act
would be attracted if defendant No. 4 establishes that he is not
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
a party to the fraud, or if the plaintiff fails to establish that the
entire transaction was fraudulent, then the proviso to Section
17 of the Limitation Act would stand attracted. This is obviously
a question for the trial Court to decide after conducting the
trial, and, if established, it would likely be a ground for the trial
Court not to entertain the suit. Hence, the Court finds no merits
and accordingly dismissed CRP.No.131/2024.
3. The defendant No.4 had filed CRP.No.318/2024.
Initially, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the CRP by
rejecting the plaint. Subsequently, a review petition i.e.,
RP.No.275/2025, was filed, and it was allowed. The order
passed in CRP.No.318/2024 filed by defendant No.4 was
recalled, and the CRP was restored to file. Now, both defendant
No.1 and defendant No.4 have filed review petitions in
RP.Nos.486/2025 and 543/2025 in CRP.No.131/2024. As the
earlier order is recalled, defendant No.4 is before this Court in
CRP.No.318/2024.
4. Before proceeding with the matter, it is appropriate to
look at the contents of the plaint. The facts are that in 1986,
the plaintiff purchased agricultural land totally measuring 12
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
acres in Sy.No.18 (presently new Sy.No.18/4) of Uttarahalli
Manavarthe Kaval Village, Uttarahalli, Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, Bangalore District, by way of 6 Sale Deeds total extent
of 12 acres. At the same time, the plaintiff's friend, Dr. Joseph
Lenz Pendanam, also purchased 15 acres of land in the same
Sy.No.18 under three registered Sale Deeds dated 08.10.1986,
09.10.1986, and 09.10.1986. In 1989-90, Dr. Joseph Lenz
Pendanam wanted to move to Germany. He handed over the
original title deeds and other documents to the plaintiff for the
purpose of change of khatha and conversion order, etc.
Defendant No.1 was one of the neighbors of the plaintiff at
Koramangala. Defendant No.1 and his family members became
close to the plaintiff and his family members, as they were
neighbors. After Dr. Joseph went to Germany, there was no
progress in the matter of change of khatha of the properties. In
the month of November 1988, the plaintiff shifted his residence
to House No.771, 7th Main, 4th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore, and resided there till June 1990. Thereafter, in July
1990, he shifted his residence to House No.155, 1st Block,
Koramangala, Bangalore, and resided there till November 1993.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
Though the plaintiff changed his residence, the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 remained in contact.
5. In 1992, the plaintiff was residing at No.155, 1st
Block, Koramangala, Bangalore. At that time, the plaintiff had
an opportunity to discuss with defendant No. 1 the problems
faced by him and his friend, Dr. Joseph, regarding phodi,
durasth, and change of khatha, etc. At that time, defendant
No.1 represented that he had good contacts with officials in
revenue, survey, and other government authorities. Defendant
No.1 led the plaintiff to believe that he was the right person to
get the work done for the plaintiff, and he also spoke to Dr.
Joseph, who was in Germany, and promised and assured that
he would take care of the payment of property taxes, cleaning
of property, etc., which was completely believed by them. The
plaintiff agreed to entrust the work to defendant No.1 in a bona
fide belief. In 1992, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to
defendant No.1 toward property tax, cleaning of properties,
etc. The plaintiff regularly contacted defendant No. 1 and asked
him about the same. When the plaintiff was residing in
Koramangala, defendant No. 1 used to come to the plaintiff's
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
house and collect amounts in cash toward property tax,
cleaning expenses, etc. From December 1993 to June 1995, the
plaintiff was residing in Apartment No. 7B, Garden Homes, Aga
Abbas Ali Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore. Thereafter, from July 1995
to July 1998, the plaintiff was residing in Apartment No.2,
Garden Homes, Aga Abbas Ali Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore. After
the plaintiff shifted to Aga Abbas Ali Road, the plaintiff used to
meet defendant No. 1 very often. Whenever the plaintiff met
and enquired about the work entrusted to him, defendant No. 1
used to say that the survey and phodi of the entire land were
still not completed.
6. In 1997, the plaintiff planned to move to the USA. The
plaintiff's friend, Dr. Joseph, was residing in Germany.
Defendant No.1 met the plaintiff and requested that the original
title deeds and other documents be handed over to his custody
until completion of phodi, change of khata, and conversion, as
the survey authorities would require the original documents.
Defendant No.1 also stated that the documents were required
to prove the title in respect of 27 acres of land and that they
had been handed over. Until the plaintiff left for the USA in July
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
1998, the plaintiff was following up with defendant No.1. In
July 1998, the plaintiff left for the USA and resided there until
May 2002. During his stay in the USA, the plaintiff visited India
only about 5 times. He was informed by defendant No.1 that
the extent of 400 acres did not tally with the actual extent of
land available and that the phodi had been delayed. It is stated
that the plaintiff had not at all executed any power of attorney
appointing defendant No.1 or anyone as his agent or power of
attorney holder to do any acts, things, or deeds with respect to
the suit schedule properties or any portion of it. The plaintiff did
not intend to sell the suit schedule properties to anyone
through any third parties, including defendant No.1. The
plaintiff returned to India in 2002 and resided in Safali
Apartment, Aga Abbas Ali Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore, until March
2003. After returning to Bangalore, the plaintiff contacted
defendant No.1 and enquired about the phodi, durasth, and
khata. At that time, defendant No.1 represented that the phodi
and durasth of the entire land in Sy.No.18 were happening
within a few months and that thereafter the khata would be
transferred in the name of the plaintiff. In April 2003, the
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
plaintiff shifted his residence to House No.370, 11th Main, 3rd
Block, Koramangala, and stayed there until October 2004.
Defendant No.1 and the plaintiff used to meet very often. In
November 2004, the plaintiff shifted his residence to Apartment
No. 12, Mantri Altius, No.1, Raj Bhavan Road, Bangalore. Due
to his family affairs, the education and career of the plaintiff's
children, and his hectic travels, the plaintiff became very busy.
Despite this, the plaintiff used to call defendant No.1 and
enquire about the progress of the work entrusted to him.
7. It is stated that defendant No.1 used to come to the
plaintiff's house to collect amounts towards property tax and
expenses for clearing the properties, and he used to give
excuses for the delay. He had been paying the tax until 2017.
About 7 to 8 months ago, the plaintiff brought certain local
breed of cows. He wanted to set up a goshala for the protection
and development of Desi cows and to carry on agricultural
activities on a large scale by adopting the latest technology.
Hence, in the first week of September 2018, the plaintiff met
defendant No.1 at his residence in Koramangala, enquired
about the work entrusted to him, and requested him to return
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
the original documents and title deeds given to his custody. At
that time, defendant No.1 tried to give evasive replies and
avoided providing or returning the documents to the plaintiff.
For the first time, observing the conduct and behavior of
defendant No.1 towards the plaintiff, the plaintiff suspected foul
play. Immediately, he went to inspect the suit schedule
properties personally. To the utter shock, during his inspection
on 10.09.2018, the plaintiff found several buildings and
constructions put up in the suit schedule properties and also in
the land of Dr. Joseph. They informed the plaintiff that
defendant No.3 and others had constructed the said buildings
between the years 2015 and 2016 and were running retirement
home, resort, treatment centers, etc., in the said buildings. He
immediately informed the same to his friend Dr. Joseph. Then
the plaintiff came to know that the suit schedule properties had
been purchased by defendant No.1 through the plaintiff's
alleged General Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. P.G. Alexander,
i.e., defendant No.2, on 09.10.2001 and 22.12.2001, under
three registered Sale Deeds for a throwaway price of
Rs.8,000/- per acre (total Rs.96,000/-).
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
8. Similarly, defendant No. 1 purchased Dr. Joseph' s
properties through the very same GPA holder under three
registered Sale Deeds dated 08.10.2001 and 09.10.2001.
Defendant No.2 alleged to be the GPA Holder of the plaintiff, is
a total stranger to the plaintiff. At no point of time did the
plaintiff have any transaction with the said Alexander, i.e.
defendant No.2. The plaintiff came to know that defendant No.2
is none other than the uncle of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff
made all possible efforts to obtain a copy of the GPA alleged to
have been executed in favour of defendant No.2 but it was not
available. Even defendant No. 1 did not furnish copies of the
GPA despite the plaintiff' s request. In the above
circumstances, the plaintiff strongly believes that no such GPA
exists. It is stated that, by taking undue advantage of the
original documents given to him by the plaintiff and his friend
Dr. Joseph, defendant No. 1 created the said bogus, sham,
nominal, fabricated, and illegal Sale Deeds in his name with the
connivance and collusion of defendant No. 2. The GPA is used
to convey the suit schedule properties by defendant No. 2 in
favor of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff learned that, in collusion
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
and connivance with defendant No.3, who was alleged to be the
Managing Director of defendant No. 4, defendant No. 1
executed the Sale Deed dated 03.10.2005, conveying the suit
schedule properties and the properties of Dr. Joseph, totaling
27 acres, in the name of defendant No. 4. The plaintiff stated
that, under the fraudulent Sale Deed, defendant No. 1 received
more than Rs. 15 crores from defendant No.4 while the Sale
Deed shows that he received a whopping sum of
Rs.3,75,00,000/- from defendant No. 4. It is apparent that
defendant No.1 taking undue advantage of his friendship with
the plaintiff, has made easy and huge money by cheating the
plaintiff and his friend Dr. Joseph. The defendants have
executed their plan to cheat the plaintiff and make unlawful
gains from and out of valuable suit schedule properties by
following a fully choreographed plan.
9. It is stated that all the defendants are known to each
other, that each is aware of every detail of the conspiracy, and
that all have taken active part in the commission of each and
every conspiratorial act. The agreements among the
conspirators are established by documents created and
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
fabricated by them. All of them, individually and collectively,
have adopted various devices and techniques to achieve the
goal of the conspiracy. All the illegal acts of the persons attract
the ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust, creating
forged documents, and using forged documents as genuine.
Hence, the plaintiff has lodged the complaint before the police
station. It is stated that fraud has been committed against the
plaintiff and that the cause of action for the suit arose in the
first week of September 2018, when the plaintiff first suspected
foul play. Thereafter, on 10.09.2018, when the plaintiff visited
the suit schedule properties and found that the buildings had
been constructed on his property, the plaintiff realized that
defendant No. 1 had committed fraud against the plaintiff.
Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
10. Defendant Nos.1 and 4 filed applications seeking
rejection of the plaint, i.e., I.A.Nos.III and IV. Those
applications were rejected by order dated 22.01.2024. While
rejecting the applications, the trial Court observed that it is well
settled in law that, to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11
of the CPC, the Court must be guided by the averments in the
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
plaint and not by the defense taken by the defendants, and
that the Court considered the contents of the plaint. The trial
Court further observed that, as to knowledge of the alleged
fraud, the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff entrusted the
mutation work of katha. In the plaint, the plaintiff averred the
sequence of events by which he acquired knowledge of the
alleged fraud committed by defendant No. 1. It is the
contention of defendant Nos. 1 and 4 that, except for averring
that the plaintiff became suspicious of an evasive answer said
to have been given by defendant No.1 in September 2019, the
plaintiff has not shown reasonable diligence to postpone the
commencement of the running of the time to September 2019,
the actual date of registration of the Sale Deed in favor of
defendant No. 1. It is a well-settled position of law that the
question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which
requires to be gone into after the trial. On reading the plaint, it
does not disclose that, on the face of it, the plaintiff's suit is
barred by limitation. Under such circumstances, the contention
of defendant Nos.1 and 4 that the plaintiff's suit requires to be
rejected by invoking the power under Order VII Rule 11(d) and,
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
consequent upon it, that there is no cause of action, cannot be
accepted, and accordingly, the trial Court rejected the
applications.
11. When the defendant No.1 had filed
CRP.No.131/2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered
the contentions and the judgments and observed that, as could
be seen from the plaint, the plaintiff averred that he became
aware of the fraud only in September 2018 and thereafter filed
the suit in the year 2019. In this view of the matter, the Court
is of the view that the arguments of the counsel of the
petitioner that the plaint did not disclose the cause of action or
that the same would be barred by limitation cannot be
accepted. Further, as far as the reliance on the judgment of the
Madras High Court cited is concerned, the Madras High Court
adhered to the provision of Section 17 of the Limitation Act and
concluded that fraud played on the third party cannot enable
the plaintiff to come to the Court and get over the plea of
Limitation. The Court is of the view that the said judgment
would be of no avail to the defendant No.1, and the Court has
observed in paragraph No.16 about the Limitation Act, with a
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
reference regarding the defendant No.4. Accordingly,
CRP.No.131/2024 was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, both
defendant Nos.1 and 4 have filed two review petitions.
12. First, coming to the contention of defendant No.1,
learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 submits that the
impugned order, as reproduced in paragraph No.59 of the
plaint, has rejected the contention and accepted the averment
on its face value to the effect that the plaintiff/respondent No.1
purportedly, ‘for the first time in the 1st week of September
2018, came to know about the fraudulent acts committed and
documents created by the petitioner/defendant.’ The trial Court
concluded that the contention that the suit is barred by
limitation cannot be countenanced. It is submitted that the
conclusion, based on the plaint averments and accepting them
on their face value, is virtually tantamount to subjecting the
law of limitation to the plaintiff's mercy, and there is an error
apparent on the face of the record. The trial Court failed to
apply Section 17 of the Limitation Act, in terms of which the
plaintiff will have to aver and establish that, despite due
diligence, he was unable to detect the fraud until the filing of
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
the suit. In the absence of any such averment, the suit is
barred by limitation. It is submitted that the Court, while
referring to the proviso under Section 17 of the Limitation Act
without referring to the main provision itself, committed an
error apparent on the face of the record insofar as the sale
deed of the year 2005 in favour of defendant No.4 is
concerned, inasmuch as it is nobody's case that defendant No.4
is a party to the alleged fraud committed by defendant No.1,
and consequently, the reliefs were not maintainable. It is
submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by a well-
reasoned order, allowed the civil revision petition filed by
defendant No.4 on the interim application I.A. No.4, by order
dated 20.06.2025. It is submitted that subsequently,
respondent No.1 appears to have misled the Co-ordinate Bench
by referring to the impugned order and seeking a review of the
order dated 20.06.2025 in CRP No.318/2024 in R.P.
No.275/2025. The Co-ordinate Bench allowed the review
petition by order dated 24.09.2025 and restored CRP
No.318/2024. The petitioner has not preferred any appeal
against the said impugned judgment.
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
13. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 has
relied on Section 237 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which
deals with the liability of the principal inducing the belief that
the agent's unauthorised acts were authorised. He has also
relied on Sections 35, 110 and 114(e) of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. These provisions deal with the relevancy of entries
in public records made in the performance of duty, the burden
of proof as to ownership, and the Court's power to presume the
existence of certain facts. He has also relied on Section 32 of
the Registration Act, 1908, which deals with persons competent
to present documents for registration; Order VI Rule 4 of the
CPC, which requires particulars to be given where necessary;
and Order VI Rule 10 of the CPC, which deals with malice,
knowledge, etc. Further, he has also relied on Section 17 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. In light of the same, it is submitted that
the plaint needs to be rejected. It is also submitted that the
documents pertain to the years 2001–2005, were very much
within the knowledge of the plaintiff, are public documents and,
as per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, amounts to
constructive notice to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the trial
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
Court failed to consider these aspects and accepted the
plaintiff's averments regarding limitation. He relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Babulal Vaktaji
1
Shah Vs. Chandabai . Then relied on Appasamy Real
2
Estates Ltd. Vs. Neelayathatchi Ammal and Others . He
relied on paragraph 5 and 9 which reads as follows:
“5. The plaintiffs have alleged in the plaint that
the first defendant, who had purchased the
property in the year 1951, conveyed the
property so purchased by them in favour of
defendants 46 to 55 under sale deeds dated
05.06.1996, 11.07.1996 and 09.02.1998.
Therefore in effect, if the sale deed dated
29.05.1951 is set aside and the consequential
declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners is
given, then the rights of defendants 46 to 55
would be legally interfered with. Clause (i) of
the proviso to section 17(1) of the Limitation Act
reads as follows:
“Provided that nothing in this section shall
enable any suit to be instituted or application to
be made to recover or enforce any charge
against, or set aside any transaction affecting,
any property which —
(i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for
valuable consideration by a person who was not
a party to the fraud and did not at the time of
the purchase know, or have reason to believe,
that any fraud had been committed.”
1
1998 SCC Kar 229
2
2005-3-L.W. 152
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
In the context of the above provision of law, I
went through the plaint again and again to find
out what exactly is the case of the plaintiffs
against defendants 46 to 55. At all stages in the
plaint, I find that the plaintiffs attribute “fraud”
only to the first defendant. The object sought to
be achieved by such “fraud” (assuming “fraud”
was played) was accomplished in the year 1951
when the first defendant had the sale deed
dated 29.05.1951 executed in his favour. There
is no allegation whatsoever in the plaint that
defendants 46 to 55 were a party to that
“fraud”. There is also no allegation in the plaint
that defendants 46 to 55, at the time of
conveyances in their favour, either knew or had
reason to believe that any “fraud” had been
committed in respect of the property forming the
subject matter of conveyances in their favour. If
the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint as stated is
accepted for the present, then it would only
show that the first defendant played a “fraud” in
getting the sale deed executed in his name. In
the annexure to the plaint, the details of the sale
deeds executed in favour of defendants 46 to 55
are given and it shows that in all a sum of Rs.
73,60,000/- is paid as consideration under all
those transactions. Therefore it is clear from the
plaint that defendants 46 to 55 are not accused
of being a party to the “fraud” they are shown to
have purchased the property for valuable
consideration and that there is not even an
allegation that defendants 46 to 55 knew or had
reason to believe that a “fraud” had been
committed in the year 1951.
9. It is no doubt true that the judgments
referred to above were dealing with cases where
rejection of the plaint was sought for, on the
ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause
of action. But however in the case on hand,
rejection of the plaint is sought for solely on the
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
ground that it is barred by law, namely, Law of
limitation. But however I am sure that the
judgments referred to above dealing with the
case falling under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the
Code of Civil Procedure would equally apply to
the case falling under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the
Code of Civil Procedure as to the extent of the
power available to the Court under that
provision of law namely, Order 7 Rule 11. A
careful and meaningful reading of the plaint in
this case, in my opinion, really show that it is a
manifestly vexatious and merit less “lis” and it
does not disclose a clear right to sue. To save
the suit from the Law of limitation, the plaintiffs
have made certain averments in paragraphs 25
and 28 of the plaint, which alone made a learned
Judge of this Court to overrule the objections
made by the Registry before registering the
plaint, stating that the suit is barred by
limitation. The allegation in para 25 of the plaint
is that when a close friend of plaintiffs 2 and 3
approached them with an offer to purchase the
lands in question and wanted the documents of
title relating to the same, the first plaintiff asked
the first defendant to give back to her the
documents of the lands. There is no allegation in
the plaint under what circumstances the
documents of title were entrusted to the first
defendant. The sale in favour of the first
defendant was way back in the year 1951 and
the first plaintiff would have been aged 13 on
that day. Therefore it is clear that only with a
view to give a colour - speculative exercise - to
the claim in the plaint, the plaintiffs have come
forward with the allegation in para 25 that only
after the offer came at the end of October, 2002
the first plaintiff wanted the first defendant to
return the documents back to her. The allegation
in para 28 of the plaint also is not better weighty
than the allegations found in para 25 of the
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
plaint. Documents 3, 4 and 5 filed along with the
plaint (sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos. 46
to 55) show that copies of documents were
applied for on 23.9.2002 (document Nos. 3 and
4) and on 20.9.2002 (document No. 5).
Therefore it is clear that the plaintiffs case that
they started the ball moving only after the end
of October, 2002 appear to be false on the face
of it. The plaintiffs are shown to be residing
namely, in the same area where the suit
property is situated. Therefore the exploitation
of the said property by defendant Nos. 46 to 55
or their predecessors-in-interest should not
have escaped the attention of the plaintiffs.
What more? There is an allegation in the plaint
that the very same property is the subject
matter of sale by this court in O.P. No. 63/53 at
the instance of the official assignee in favour of
Radhabai, wife of Vijayaraghava Mudaliar and
the sale certificate was issued by this court in
her name on 23.08.1957. The legal heirs of the
said purchaser and her husband Vijayaraghava
Mudaliar are defendants 5 to 36. An additional
fact is also available in the plaint namely, the
42nd defendant had obtained a decree for
specific performance in respect of the very same
property in O.S. No. 256/1978 on the file of the
Sub-Court, Chengleput and the court executed
the sale deed in favour of the decree holder,
which document stands registered as document
No. 3123/83. The plaintiffs have not chosen to
ask for any declaration in respect of those two
transactions. Assuming that the plaintiffs are
likely to succeed in the present suit, then so long
as the sale of the property by this court in the
insolvency jurisdiction and the sale of the very
same property by the civil court at Chengleput in
pursuance of a decree for specific performance
stand, I have my own doubt whether the
plaintiffs would get any title at all. Though the
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
legal representatives of the purchaser of the
sale conducted by this court and the 42nd
defendant are stated to have signed as
confirming parties to the sale deeds in favour of
defendants 46 to 55, yet that will not have the
effect of obliterating their respective title as far
as the plaintiffs are concerned. Probably, the act
of the persons referred to above may be binding
on them vis-a-vis the purchasers namely,
defendants 46 to 55.”
14. He relied on the case of Smt. Dilboo (Dead) by
3
LRs. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Dhanraji (Dead) and Ors. He relied
4
on Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian and Others . He relied on
5
the case of Uma Devi and Ors. Vs. Anand Kumar and Ors .
Relying on these judgments, it is submitted that the order
impugned needs to be reviewed and ultimately the plaint has to
be rejected.
15. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.4
submits that, despite being a party to the proceedings in CRP
No.131/2024, defendant No.4 was neither issued notice nor
afforded any opportunity of hearing, yet certain observations
were made on the petitioner's claim without hearing defendant
No.4. It is submitted that the principles of natural justice are
3
2000 (7) SCC 702
4
(2001) 7 SCC 549
5
2025 INSC 434
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
fundamental to the administration of justice and constitute the
bedrock of fair adjudication, and that the final order passed in
CRP No.131/2024 is required to be reviewed because the
cardinal principle of “ Audi alteram partem” was not followed,
thereby severely prejudicing the rights of the petitioner.
Although defendant No.4 was arrayed as a respondent in CRP
No.131/2024, the entire revision petition pertained to the
rejection of the plaint vis-à-vis defendant No.1 and the grounds
urged by him. The final order goes beyond the grounds urged
by defendant No.1 and makes observations on the probable
grounds to be urged by defendant No.4 before the trial Court,
which are now being urged by defendant No.1, and claims that
such observations are binding on defendant No.4. It is
submitted that, in paragraph No.16 of the order, the Court
made a crucial observation relating to the applicability of the
proviso to Section 17 of the Limitation Act, and that such
observations were made in the final order dated 05.04.2024
without issuing notice to defendant No.4. The observations in
paragraphs 6 and 16 directly and adversely affect the rights
and interests of defendant No.4, and absolutely no opportunity
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
was provided to present its case, make submissions or address
arguments on the issues raised. It is submitted that the
impugned order has to be reviewed by recalling the earlier
order, as it violates the principles of natural justice.
16. In CRP.No.318/2024, it is submitted that the suit is
hopelessly barred by law and that the plaintiff has no rights
whatsoever over the suit schedule property, as per Sections 17
and 58 of the Limitation Act. Respondent No.1, claiming to be
the owner, has filed a frivolous suit for declaration in respect of
the suit schedule property. The plaint lacks a cause of action
and, hence, deserves to be dismissed. The Court has failed to
note that respondent No.1 filed the case after a delay of about
18 years, with vague assertions. Upon perusal of the plaint as a
whole, it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to disclose the
cause of action in respect of any relief claimed in the plaint.
The trial Court had failed to appreciate that respondent No.1
sold the suit schedule property through his power of attorney
holder by separate sale deeds dated 09.10.2002 and
22.12.2002. The delay of 18 years is unexplained, except by
narrating an unbelievable story. The entire premise on which
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
the plaintiff relies to establish the cause of action is false and,
even logically, cannot be construed as a true fact. The Court
has failed to appreciate that the plaintiff has blatantly and
arbitrarily misled the Court only when attempting to create an
individual cause of action, claiming that, in September 2018, he
visited the suit schedule property and was shocked to see the
construction of more than 100 villas.
17. Learned counsel submits that, in Dilboo's case
referred to supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court developed the
principle that whenever a document is registered, the date of
registration becomes the deemed date of knowledge. In other
cases, where a fact would be discovered by due diligence, the
Court would attribute deemed knowledge to the plaintiff, as a
party cannot extend the limitation period merely by claiming it
had no knowledge. The Court failed to consider the defendants'
arguments and Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. The
respondents' actions lack the reasonableness required under
Section 17 of the Limitation Act. Through artful drafting, the
plaintiff has woven an illusory goshala narrative to lend legal
credibility to his failure. It is submitted that defendant No.4 is
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
not a party to any of the proceedings, particularly the alleged
fraud or any other acts, and the same cannot be attributed to
defendant No.4. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to
consider these aspects, that the suit is hopelessly barred by
limitation, and that it ought to have rejected the plaint.
18. Learned Senior Counsel, representing the learned
counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the plaintiff is the
absolute owner of the entire extent of the land and that the
defendant sold the property without any consideration to the
plaintiff and even without the plaintiff's knowledge. Defendant
No.2 executed the sale deed in favor of Defendant No.1, who
has no connection with the plaintiff. Defendant No.2, in
connivance with Defendant No.1, created the alleged
documents. It is submitted that when fraud vitiates everything
and the plaintiff has pleaded fraud, limitation cannot be a
question, as the plaintiff has laid the factual foundation for his
case. It is submitted that the GPA was never executed; to date,
no copy of the GPA has been seen either in the suit or in any of
the proceedings, and no consideration was received by the
plaintiff.
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
19. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel on either
side, perused the material on record. The question that falls for
consideration before this Court is:
“Whether the plaint, read as a whole,
discloses that the suit is barred by
limitation?”
In the review petitions, the further question arise for
consideration is:
“Whether the order dismissing
defendant No.1's civil revision petition
suffers from an error apparent on the
face of the record?”
Based on defendant No.4's claim, the questions
that arise for consideration is:
“Whether the order in the CRP filed by
defendant No.1 needs to be set aside
and whether defendant No.4 has made
out any grounds for rejection of the
plaint?”
The scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is well settled. The
Court is required to examine the averments in the plaint and
determine whether the suit is barred by law. The defence of the
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
defendants cannot be substituted for the plaintiff's pleadings.
At the same time, the Court is not bound to accept an artificial
cause of action merely because the plaint contains allegations
of fraud or subsequent knowledge. If the plaint itself discloses
that the suit is barred by limitation, the Court is empowered to
reject it. However, where the question of limitation depends
upon disputed facts, the Court cannot determine those facts
against the plaintiff at the threshold, as it becomes a question
of fact and law. The principal contention advanced by the
defendants is that the registered sale deeds of the years 2001–
2005 constitute constructive notice to the plaintiff. Registration
undoubtedly carries legal consequences. Section 3 of the
Transfer of Property Act recognises constructive notice in the
circumstances contemplated by the provision. However, the
doctrine cannot be applied without considering the nature of
the transaction, the persons against whom notice is sought to
be attributed, and the circumstances in which such knowledge
becomes relevant.
20. In the present case, the plaintiffs do not merely state
that they were unaware of the registered documents. Their
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
case is that defendant No.1, who was entrusted with the affairs
of the property, continued to deal with them even after the
alleged alienations, received money towards payment of
property tax, and maintained contact with them until 2017–18.
It is alleged that his conduct prevented them from discovering
that the property had already been transferred. Whether these
allegations are true is a matter for adjudication. The entire
plaint sets out how many times the plaintiff and defendant No.1
met and how many times the petitioner paid the property tax,
and it is the plaintiff's case that no GPA was executed by him.
Constructive notice cannot be treated as an automatic answer
to every allegation of fraudulent concealment. Equally, an
allegation of fraud does not render registration irrelevant. The
legal consequences of registration and the circumstances relied
upon to explain delayed discovery must be examined together.
The defendants may establish that the plaintiff had knowledge
of the transaction much earlier or that circumstances existed
that ought to have put them on inquiry. However, such a
conclusion cannot be reached at the stage of rejection of the
plaint by assuming facts contrary to the plaintiff's pleaded case.
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
21. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 has relied on
Section 237 of the Indian Contract Act, which deals with the
circumstances under which a principal may be bound by an
agent's acts, whether the agent acted without authority or the
principal, by words or conduct, induced a third person to
believe that such acts were within the agent's authority. The
foundation of the provision is a representation attributable to
the principal and the belief created in the third party. The
defendants contend that, because the plaintiff entrusted
defendant No.2 with the property's affairs, the plaintiff must be
bound by the transactions undertaken by defendant No.2.
However, the authority to look after a property and the
authority to alienate it are not necessarily the same. Section
237 of the Indian Contract Act does not make every act of an
agent binding upon the principal merely because an agency
relationship exists. More importantly, that provision, by itself,
does not establish when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the
transaction. Further, in this case, according to the defendant,
the GPA is unregistered, and according to the plaintiff, he had
never executed, and the plaintiff has never seen it. Hence,
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
Section 237 of the Indian Contract Act will not come to the
rescue of the defendants.
22. Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act is founded
on the doctrine of election. The provision applies where a
person purports to transfer property over which he has no right
or authority to transfer and, in the same transaction, confers a
benefit upon the owner of that property. In such circumstances,
the owner may be required to elect between affirming the
transfer and relinquishing the benefit conferred upon him. In
the present case, it is the specific contention of the plaintiff that
no consideration was paid to him under the disputed
transaction. Further, there is no admission in the plaint to the
effect that the plaintiff has accepted any benefit under the
disputed Sale Deeds while simultaneously challenging their
validity. Whether the plaintiff has accepted any benefit with
knowledge of the transaction, having regard to his conduct, is a
matter that requires factual determination and cannot be
presumed at this stage. Therefore, the doctrine of election
cannot be invoked merely on the basis that the defendants rely
upon registered conveyances.
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
23. Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, upon which
reliance has also been placed, deals with the burden of proof as
to ownership where possession is established. The provision
raises a rebuttable presumption in favour of the person in
possession. However, it does not confer an indefeasible title
upon such person, nor does it preclude another person from
establishing ownership. In the present case, the plaintiffs seek
a declaration of title and recovery of possession. Although the
defendants claim title under registered Sale Deeds, their
respective claims are required to be examined in accordance
with law. Even assuming that the defendants are in possession
of the suit property, Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act
does not, by itself, determine when such possession became
adverse to the plaintiffs or when the period of limitation
commenced. A provision governing the burden of proof cannot
be construed as creating a statutory bar to the maintainability
of the suit. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on Section
32 of the Registration Act. The said provision specifies the
persons who are entitled to present documents for registration.
However, the authority to execute a conveyance and the
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
authority to present a document for registration are distinct
matters and must be examined independently in accordance
with the applicable statutory provisions.
24. The plaintiff has alleged that Defendant No. 3 acted
under an unregistered General Power of Attorney and exceeded
the authority entrusted to him. Whether Defendant No. 3 was
authorised to execute the Sale Deed, whether the document
was validly presented for registration, and what legal
consequences flow from the Power of Attorney are matters that
depend upon the nature and contents of the relevant
instruments and the applicable statutory requirements. The
mere fact that the Sale Deeds were registered does not, by
itself, conclusively establish the authority of the person who
executed the documents or brought about the transaction.
Therefore, these questions cannot be determined against the
plaintiff merely on the basis of the registered Sale Deeds. The
requirements of Order VI Rules 4 and 10 of the CPC also
require consideration in the context of the allegations of fraud.
Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC mandates that, wherever fraud is
alleged, the necessary particulars must be specifically pleaded.
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
A party cannot defeat the law of limitation merely by describing
an old transaction as fraudulent. The pleadings must disclose
the material facts constituting the alleged fraud, together with
the circumstances relied upon in support of such allegations.
25. In the present case, the plaintiffs have pleaded that
Defendant No. 3 was entrusted with the affairs of the property;
that the transactions were carried out without their knowledge;
that no consideration was paid to them; and that Defendant
No. 3 continued to remain in contact with them even after the
alienations. The plaintiffs have also referred to the payments
allegedly made towards property taxes, their residence outside
India, and the circumstances in which they claim to have
discovered the transactions in 2018. These averments are
relevant because the allegations are not confined to fraud at
the time of execution of the documents. The plaintiffs have
further alleged that the subsequent conduct of Defendant No. 1
contributed to the concealment of the transactions. Order VI
Rule 10 of the CPC permits a state of mind, including fraudulent
intention or knowledge, to be pleaded as a fact without setting
out the circumstances from which it is to be inferred. However,
- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
this does not dispense with the requirement of furnishing
particulars under Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC. The two
provisions operate in distinct fields. While the material facts
constituting the alleged fraudulent conduct must be specifically
pleaded, the intention accompanying such conduct may be
pleaded in the manner contemplated under Rule 10. Whether
Defendant No. 3 acted with fraudulent intention is ultimately a
matter to be established by evidence. At this stage, the Court
cannot determine the issue merely by accepting the
explanation offered by the defendants in respect of the
disputed transactions.
26. Coming to the question of limitation, Section 17 of the
Limitation Act assumes significance and requires consideration.
The provision recognises that, where a suit is based on fraud,
or where knowledge of the right or title on which the suit is
founded has been concealed by fraud, the period of limitation
does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers the fraud or
could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. The
requirement of reasonable diligence is of considerable
importance. Section 17 does not permit a person to remain
- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
indifferent to his rights indefinitely and thereafter institute
proceedings merely by asserting that the fraud was discovered
at a later point in time. A plaintiff seeking the benefit of
delayed discovery must establish the circumstances that
prevented the earlier discovery of the fraud. The provision is
intended to protect a person whose right to sue has been
concealed by fraud; it does not, however, provide an
unrestricted extension of the period of limitation. The
defendants contend that the plaintiffs could have ascertained
the transactions from the registration records and that their
failure to do so cannot postpone the commencement of
limitation. This contention cannot be brushed aside. However,
the plaintiffs' case is that Defendant No. 1 continued to deal
with them in relation to the property, received money towards
the payment of property taxes, and maintained contact with
them even long after the disputed transactions. According to
the plaintiffs, these circumstances prevented them from
suspecting that the property had been alienated.The fact that
the plaintiffs were residing outside India does not, by itself,
suspend the running of limitation, nor does a relationship of
- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
trust and confidence automatically exempt a person from
exercising reasonable diligence in protecting his rights.
Nevertheless, where the plaint specifically attributes continued
concealment of the transactions to the very person who had
been entrusted with the affairs of the property, the question as
to whether the fraud could have been discovered earlier
through the exercise of reasonable diligence requires
consideration in the light of the surrounding circumstances. The
availability of registration records is certainly a relevant
consideration; however, it cannot, in every case, be treated as
conclusive in determining the date on which the fraud was
discovered or ought reasonably to have been discovered.
27. The plaintiffs' case is that they acquired knowledge of
the disputed transactions in 2018 and instituted the suit in
2019. Whether the alleged date of discovery is genuine,
whether Defendant No. 1 concealed the transactions, and
whether the plaintiffs could have discovered them at an earlier
point in time are questions that remain open for consideration.
The defendants are entitled to contest the explanation offered
by the plaintiffs. However, these questions cannot be
- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
conclusively determined in proceedings under Order VII Rule 11
of the CPC unless the bar of limitation is apparent from the
averments in the plaint itself. The plaintiffs have sought a
declaration of title and recovery of possession. In addition to
questioning the Sale Deeds, it is necessary to consider the
applicability of Articles 59 and 65 of the Limitation Act. Article
59 prescribes a period of three years for a suit seeking
cancellation or setting aside of an instrument, commencing
from the date on which the facts entitling the plaintiff to such
relief first become known to him. Article 65 prescribes a period
of twelve years for a suit for possession of immovable property
based on title, commencing from the date on which the
defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. The
applicability of these provisions depends upon the substance of
the claim, whether the plaintiffs are required to seek
cancellation of the Sale Deeds or whether a declaration that the
documents are void or not binding upon them would suffice,
and upon their relationship to the instruments and the authority
under which the transactions were brought about. These
questions cannot be resolved merely by applying a period of
- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
three years from the dates of execution or registration of the
disputed documents. This Court must also consider the position
of Defendant No. 4 in relation to Defendant No. 1. Defendant
No. 4 does not claim title independently of Defendant No. 1.
The property was purchased by Defendant No. 1 under the Sale
Deed of 2001 and was subsequently conveyed by him to
Defendant No. 4 under the Sale Deed of 2005. Thus, the title
asserted by Defendant No. 4 flows entirely from Defendant No.
1. The subsequent conveyance does not constitute an
independent source of title unconnected with the transaction of
2001. This aspect assumes significance because both
defendants seek rejection of the same plaint on substantially
identical grounds. Defendant No. 1 had already challenged the
order passed by the learned Trial Judge refusing to reject the
plaint on the ground of limitation. The said challenge was
considered by this Court, and the Civil Revision Petition was
dismissed. Defendant No. 4, who derives his title from
Defendant No. 1, now seeks a review of the said order while
also pursuing his own revision petition against the same order
passed by the Trial Court.
- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
28. A purchaser ordinarily derives such title as his vendor
was competent to convey, subject to any statutory protection
available to the purchaser under law. Defendant No. 4 cannot
claim an independent right merely because a subsequent
registered conveyance was executed in his favour. His title
must necessarily be traced through Defendant No. 1, whose
acquisition under the Sale Deed of 2001 is itself under
challenge in the present suit. Therefore, the validity of
Defendant No. 4's purchase is intrinsically connected with the
validity of the title asserted by Defendant No. 1. This does not
mean that Defendant No. 1 is precluded from defending his
purchase or raising such contentions as may be available to
him under law. His position as a subsequent purchaser may
entitle him to invoke statutory protections, provided the
requirements for claiming such protection are satisfied.
However, the question before this Court is whether the claim of
Defendant No. 4 to a valid title, derived through Defendant No.
1, itself establishes a bar of limitation warranting rejection of
the plaint. That question does not acquire a different character
merely because the application for rejection of the plaint is
- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
pursued by either the original purchaser or the subsequent
purchaser. The Sale Deed of 2005 may give rise to additional
defences available to Defendant No. 4. However, such defences
cannot be relied upon as a ground for rejection of the plaint
unless the bar is apparent from the averments contained
therein. The plaintiffs' challenge extends to both transactions,
and the explanation concerning the alleged fraud and delayed
discovery is common to the alienations questioned in the suit.
The status of Defendant No. 4 as a subsequent purchaser does
not, by itself, establish that the plaintiffs had knowledge of
either transaction at an earlier point in time. Insofar as the
review petition filed by Defendant No. 4 against the order
passed in the Civil Revision Petition is concerned, this Court
finds no grounds warranting the exercise of its review
jurisdiction. Defendant No. 1 had already challenged the order
refusing to reject the plaint, and this Court dismissed the said
revision petition. Defendant No. 4, who derives his title from
Defendant No. 1, has not demonstrated any error apparent on
the face of the record warranting review of the said order. The
fact that Defendant No. 4 was not issued notice in those
- 47 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
proceedings does not, by itself, render the order liable to be
reviewed, particularly when no final adjudication of his title was
undertaken therein. The observations made in the Civil Revision
Petition filed by Defendant No. 1, to the effect that Defendant
No. 1 must establish his case, cannot be construed as a finding
against him. Defendant No. 4 claims title through Defendant
No. 1 and must establish the validity of the title so derived, if
the same is disputed. Such an observation does not impose any
burden beyond what is otherwise required under law.
Accordingly, the review petition is liable to be dismissed.
29. Turning to the independent Civil Revision Petition filed
by Defendant No. 1, namely, CRP No. 318/2024, the earlier
order allowing the revision petition and directing rejection of
the plaint has already been recalled in the review proceedings.
Consequently, the revision petition stands restored for
consideration on merits. This Court is, therefore, required to
examine whether the learned Trial Judge committed any error
in dismissing the application filed by Defendant No. 1 seeking
rejection of the plaint. The principal contention of Defendant
No. 1 is that the plaintiffs must be deemed to have had
- 48 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
knowledge of the transactions from the respective dates of
registration of the Sale Deeds and that, consequently, the suit
instituted in 2019 is barred by limitation. However, the plaint
contains specific allegations regarding the conduct of Defendant
No. 1 and the circumstances in which the disputed transactions
were allegedly concealed from the plaintiffs. In view of the
discussion hereinabove, the question of limitation cannot be
conclusively determined at this stage merely on the basis of the
dates of registration of the Sale Deeds. The reasons recorded
by this Court while considering the contentions raised by
Defendant No. 4 equally apply to the case of Defendant No. 1.
Accordingly, no separate consideration of the grounds raised by
Defendant No. 4 is necessary for determining the present Civil
Revision Petition.
30. This Court is conscious of the fact that the
transactions sought to be challenged date back to the period
between 2001 and 2005, whereas the suit was instituted only
in 2019. The considerable lapse of time cannot be ignored. The
law of limitation serves an important purpose in ensuring
certainty in legal relations and preventing stale claims from
- 49 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
being entertained. Therefore, allegations of fraud raised after a
considerable lapse of time must be examined with the degree
of scrutiny required by law. A mere assertion of subsequent
knowledge cannot, by itself, defeat the bar of limitation. At the
same time, the plaintiffs have pleaded a sequence of events
which, according to them, explains why the disputed
transactions remained undiscovered. They have specifically
alleged that Defendant No. 1 continued to deal with them in
relation to the property and received money from them towards
payment of property taxes, cleaning expenses and other
related purposes. These circumstances, according to the
plaintiffs, contributed to the concealment of the transactions
and delayed their discovery. Having regard to the nature of the
pleadings and the questions requiring factual determination,
this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order impugned
in the present Civil Revision Petition. In that view of the matter,
this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the RP.No.486/2025 filed by
defendant No.1 is dismissed .
- 50 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61120
CRP No. 318 of 2024
C/W RP No. 486 of 2025
RP No. 543 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010245072024
ii. The RP.No.543/2025 filed by defendant No.4
is dismissed .
iii. CRP.No.318/2024 this Court finds no reason
to interfere with the well-considered order
passed by the trial Court, and accordingly,
CRP No.318/2024 is dismissed.
iv. Questions concerning title, the validity of the
sale deeds of the year 2001-2005, the
authority of Defendant No.3, the alleged
Fraud, Constructive Notice, Limitation, and
Recovery of Possession are left open for
determination by the trial Court.
v. The learned trial Judge shall decide the suit
independently, without being influenced by
any of the observations made in these
petitions. The trial Court shall not construe
any of these observations in this petition as
an expression of this Court on the merits of
the matter.
vi. All I.As in these petitions shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
*AK