SMT KRISHNAMMA vs SMT BEERAMMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 453 OF 2024 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.KRISHNAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIKALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
2. SMT.GANGAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIKALAPPA
W/O LATE RMAESHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. SHRI.CHIKKEGOWDA
SD/O LATE MUNIKALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
4. SHRI.SUBBEGOWDA
S/O LATE MUNIKALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
5. SHRI BODDABEERAPPA
D/O LATE BYADALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KODIHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
AND:
1. SMT.BEERAMMA
W/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
2. SRI MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT MANJUNATHA TEMPLE TRUST BUILDING,
2ND CROSS, NANNAREDDY COLONY
MURUGESHPALYA
BENGALURU-560 017
3. SHRI. NAGARAJA
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
4. SHRI.CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
5. SHRI. LAKSHMANA
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
6. SHRI ANJINAPPA
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
7. SMT.SHANTAMMA
D/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.129, 1ST CROSS
MUNIGURAPPA LAYOUT
AMRUTHALLI
BENGALURU-560 092
8. SMT KANTHAMMA
D/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.129, 1ST CROSS
MUNIGURAPPA LAYOUT
AMRUTHALLI
BENGALURU-560 092
9. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA
D/O LATE MUNIKALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT VEERAPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
10. SMT.MEENAKSHI
W/O NAGARAJA
D/O LATE MUNIKALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NEAR KANAKA TEMPLE
1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN
RAMACHANDRAPPA LAYOUT
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
PADMANABHANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 070
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.V. SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6, R8
SRI.ROSHAN M.C., ADVOCATE FOR R7
NOTICE TO R9 AND R10 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O/D:
01/09/2026)
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 23.04.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.7 IN OS
NO.153/2023 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DODDABALLAPURA, REJECTING THE IA NO.7 FILED UNDER
ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The present CRP is filed aggrieved by the order dated
23.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.153/2023 by the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur, the defendants are
before this Court.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking the relief of
declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute and lawful
owners and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property measuring 4 acres 28 guntas, including 11
guntas of Kharab land, having acquired the same by virtue of
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
the registered Gift Deed dated 06.06.1960, registered in the
office of the Sub-Registrar, Doddaballapura, and a declaration
that the Sale Deed dated 11.11.1964, allegedly executed by
Smt. Doddakka in favor of the father of the first defendant, the
late Subbanna, is null and void and not binding on the
plaintiffs, and also sought for permanent injunction.
3. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that Plaintiff No.1,
along with her husband, acquired the land in question by a Gift
Deed dated 06.06.1960, registered in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Doddaballapura, executed by her mother, the late
Munichannamma, w/o late Muniswamy. She is in possession
and enjoyment of the same, being the absolute owner of the
property. In the year 1957, Plaintiff No.1 married Sri.
Channappa, and both of them took care of the mother of
Plaintiff No.1 and Smt. Doddakka with a lot of love, affection,
and care, as both were aged ladies, and hence they executed a
Gift Deed. The mother of Plaintiff No.1 died on 28.08.1991, and
the husband of Plaintiff No.1 and father of Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 8
died intestate on 22.10.2005, leaving behind him the plaintiff
No.1 as a legal heir to succeed to his estate, including his share
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
in the scheduled property. It is stated that Plaintiff No.1 herein
was the only legal heir of late Muniswamy. Accordingly, the 2nd
wife of late Muniswamy, i.e., Doddakka, executed a similar
registered Gift Deed dated 06.06.1960, gifting her allotted
share of properties to Plaintiff No.1 and her husband. Doddakka
is also a signatory to the Gift Deed, and Doddakka had
complete knowledge of the Gift Deed. The entries in the records
of rights are referred to at serial No. 1250 in the name of
Muniswamy S/o Malurappa. It is stated that, as on the date of
the execution of the Gift Deed dated 06.06.1960, Smt.
Munichannamma was the absolute owner by virtue of
inheritance in respect of land in Sy.No. 200, i.e., the suit
schedule property. Hence, after the execution of the Gift Deed
dated 06.06.1960, the plaintiff and her husband became
absolute and lawful owners in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the land. The plaintiff, after acquiring the right,
title, and interest, and having no worldly knowledge, did not
obtain the revenue entries in her name, though she has been in
continuous possession and enjoyment of the land in question.
Taking advantage of the illiteracy of plaintiff No.1, the children
of Sri. Subbanna, i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 7 herein, have
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
illegally entered their names in the revenue records in respect
of the scheduled property by stating that they have entered
into a jubane partition. This is absolutely false and baseless. It
is further submitted that the plaintiff No.1 has been the owner
of the suit schedule property since 1960 by virtue of a
registered Gift Deed. There is no question of the defendants
entering into a jubane partition in respect of the suit schedule
property, which is the exclusive property of the plaintiff herein.
4. The revenue authorities, without proper inquiry and,
more particularly, without issuing notice to the mother of the
plaintiff No.1 herein, mutated the names of defendant Nos.1
and 7 in the revenue records, i.e., for the year 1997-1998.
Immediately after learning of the mutation entries and the
orders of the revenue authorities, the plaintiffs filed an appeal
before the Assistant Commissioner, questioning the order
passed in RA.No.37/1999-2000, which was dismissed by virtue
of the order dated 22.04.2002 on the ground that
OS.No.57/1998 is pending before the Civil Court and that mere
entries in the revenue records are not conclusive proof of title
and interest over the property and are always subject to the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
decision of the Civil Court, much less that there was already a
civil suit pending before the Civil Court. In those circumstances,
the parties were at liberty to have their right, title, and interest
over the lands adjudicated by the Civil Court and then approach
the revenue authorities for such action with bona fide intention,
without referring to earlier proceedings in RA.No.37/1999 and
the dismissal of the same by virtue of the order dated
22.04.2002. The Tahsildar dismissed the claim of plaintiff No.1
in the RRT proceedings seeking a change of khata on the basis
of the registered Gift Deed in respect of the suit schedule
property. Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 filed RA No.124/2012-13
before the Assistant Commissioner seeking appropriate relief as
prayed for in the said appeal. The learned Assistant
Commissioner, by virtue of the order dated 12.08.2013,
directed the Revenue Authorities to mutate the revenue entries
in the name of plaintiff No.1. Therein, the mutation was set
aside, and further, the Tahsildar, Doddaballapur Taluk, was
directed to mutate the name of the plaintiff as the legal heir of
Sri. Channappa. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
defendants filed R.P.No.94/2013-14. The learned Deputy
Commissioner, by virtue of the order dated 24.03.2017,
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
dismissed the revision petition, thereby confirming the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.(DBP)124/2012-
13. The defendants preferred a writ petition, i.e., WP
No.23143/2017, before the High Court of Karnataka. The High
Court had set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner by
virtue of the order dated 23.06.2022 and has pleased to allow
the writ petition, and consequently the revision petition was set
aside in respect of Sy.No.200 in question on the ground that
the plaintiff did not challenge the order dated 24.04.2022
passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the
said order, the plaintiff filed W.A.No.693/2022, and that also
came to be dismissed, confirming the order of the learned
Single Judge.
5. It is stated that on 18.01.2023, the defendant brought
certain persons to the suit schedule property and began
showing it. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 and other plaintiffs
questioned the purpose of showing the suit schedule property.
The defendant represented to them that they intended to sell
the scheduled property, as they were the owners of the
property. The plaintiffs herein were shocked and surprised to
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
hear this, and thereafter they requested the defendant and the
persons who had accompanied the defendant to leave the
scheduled property, as the defendant herein had no right over
the property, and thereafter they filed the present suit.
6. In the suit, an application was filed by the petitioner
herein under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the
plaint. When the defendants denied the plaintiffs' right, title,
and possession of the land in Sy No. 200, and the Assistant
Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground of a title
dispute, the plaintiffs deliberately approached the Revenue
Authority instead of the Civil Court, knowing that she had no
subsisting right or title to the suit-schedule properties, to
obtain an order in an illegal manner and to grab the valuable
property in the defendants' possession. Now, after a period of
23 years, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a
declaration of title. As per Article 58 of the Limitation Act,
1963, the period of limitation begins when the right to sue first
accrued, and it is submitted that the suit is barred by limitation.
7. The trial court by order impugned had rejected the
application. While rejecting the application, the trial Court
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
observed that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case
on the basis of disputed Sale Deed dated 11.11.1964, executed
in favour of father of defendant/Subbanna in respect of 1 acre
15 guntas out of the suit land. In the light of the principle laid
on in the case of Kum. Geetha, D/o Late Krishna & Ors Vs.
1
Nanjundaswamy & Ors. referred supra the defendants are
not able to shoot the plaint of the plaintiffs as barred by
limitation. Defendants Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 are claiming title
over 1 acre 15 guntas in the sale deed; the plaintiffs and
defendants are at loggerheads in revenue proceedings. The
matter has to go for trial for prayer that is sought for by the
plaintiff under I.A.No.1. The trial Court further observed that
the possession of the defendants under the Sale Deed dated
11.11.1964 will not affect or disturb the facts and accordingly
rejected the application.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the trial court failed to consider the application filed under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It is submitted that the learned
Judge committed a serious error in rejecting the application on
1
2023 INSC 964
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
the ground that the defendants claim a right over land at
Sy.No.200 only to the extent of 1 acre 15 guntas, which is
highly illegal and erroneous, because the defendants claim their
right over the entire extent of land in Sy.No.200 measuring 4
acres 24 guntas, not on 1 acre 15 guntas as held by the
learned judge. It is submitted that, as per the scope of Order
VII Rule 11 of the CPC, only the plaint averments and
documents have to be looked into, read meaningfully, to decide
the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, to
determine whether the said averments indicate a cause of
action to the plaintiffs and whether the suit is barred under any
law, including the law of limitation. The observation made by
the trial court that the defendants claim a right only in respect
of 1 acre 15 guntas of land indicates that the learned judge did
not read the petitioners' application meaningfully to understand
properly the reasons on which the application was filed and the
arguments addressed for rejection of the plaint. The entire
litigation between the parties clearly shows that the dispute is
in respect of the entire land. The learned judge failed to
consider the averments made in the plaint and its documents,
namely the order of the Assistant Commissioner, which clearly
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
indicates the serious denial made by the petitioners in denying
the right, title, and possession of the respondents and claiming
the right by the petitioners in the year 2000 itself. As such, as
per the law declared in the case of Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd Vs.
2
Union of India and Anr , the cause of action by the plaintiff
arose when the right accrues to the plaintiff to file
RA.No.37/1999-2000 and the defendant filed objections
denying the title of the plaintiffs and they claimed that they are
the owners in possession of the suit schedule land. As such, the
suit filed after a period of 23 years is barred by limitation and
these aspects were not considered by the trial Court. It is
submitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff
submits that the trial court has rightly held that a partial
rejection is not permissible and that all the contentions raised
by the petitioner are questions of fact and law, which cannot be
decided at the threshold. The trial court has likewise rightly
rejected the plaint. It is submitted that there are no grounds to
interfere with the well-considered order passed by the court.
2
2011 (9) SCC 126
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
10. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record. According to the plaint, the
revenue records were in the name of the plaintiff's mother until
1997-98. After the mutation of the names of defendants No. 1
and 7, the plaintiff challenged the entries before the revenue
authorities. The plaint also refers to subsequent revenue and
writ proceedings. The plaintiff was aware of the accrual of the
cause of action in 2023, when he alleges possession. While
deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC,
the Court must consider the plaint as a whole, together with
the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The defense does
not provide a basis for rejection. Nevertheless, where the
plaintiff's own account establishes the material dates and the
statutory power follows from those dates, the Court does not
defer its determination merely because limitation is ordinarily
described as a question of fact and law. Article 58 of the
Limitation Act prescribes 3 years for obtaining a declaration,
commencing on the date the right to sue first accrues whereas
substantive relief is cancellation or setting aside the
instrument. Article 59 of the Limitation Act prescribes 3 years
limitation from where the facts entitling the plaintiff to that
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
relief first became known. On either basis, the relevant inquiry
here is where the earlier proceedings has disclosed knowledge
of the disputed sale deed and an existing challenge to the
plaintiff's asserted ownership. The earlier mutation proceedings
were not an unrelated administrative event. The plaintiff
challenged the substitution of defendant Nos.1 and 7 in the
revenue records and was aware of the sale deed underlying
their competing claim. Although mutation entries neither create
nor extinguish title, the plaintiff's challenge to those entries
demonstrates that the adverse claim had already been asserted
and was known to him. Thus, the right to seek the declaration
now claimed had arisen during those proceedings. He cannot
wait for the alleged dispossession in 2023. The revenue
authorities observed that the parties should resolve the dispute
before the Civil Court does not alter the situation. Such an
observation recognizes the limits of revenue jurisdiction. It
neither postpones the cause of action nor grants an additional
period for instituting the suit. Likewise, the subsequent writ
proceedings do not, by themselves, suspend or renew limitation
for declaratory relief. No statutory basis for excluding the
intervening period is disclosed in the plaint. The plaintiff sought
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
a declaration in respect of the entire property, and during the
proceedings in 1997-2000, there was a clear denial of the
plaintiff's title, and the material on record shows that the sale
deed sought to be set aside was known to the plaintiff. In that
case, both for declaration and for cancellation, the cause of
action accrued as early as in 2000, and this suit was filed in
2023. The cause of action shown in the plaint alone cannot be
considered, as the plaint is a bundle of facts and the Court
must look at the entire plaint. From the pleadings, it is clear
that the first knowledge was in 1998-2000. The allegation of
dispossession in 2023 must be considered in relation to the
relief it could support. Dispossession may furnish a cause of
action for recovery of possession, but it does not restructure
limitation for a declaration concerning an adverse instrument
already known to the plaintiff. Article 58 of the Limitation Act
refers to the first approval of the right to sue. A later
consequence of the existing title dispute cannot be substituted
for that earlier approval merely by mentioning it in the cause of
action paragraph, nor does describing the sale deed as null and
void dispense with examination of limitation. Here, the plaintiff
has expressly sought a judicial declaration against the sale
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
deed despite his knowledge of it during the earlier proceedings.
The asserted invalidity of the instrument is a matter underlying
that relief. His description cannot, by itself, make the
declaratory claim maintainable indefinitely. The trial court
ought to have considered the earlier accrual disclosed by the
plaintiff instead of treating the alleged dispossession in 2023 as
sufficient to carry the declaratory claim to trial, and the
defendant's case is only in respect of 1 acre, but not for the
entire property is also misplaced.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court
failed to consider the application filed under Order VII Rule 11
of CPC and rejected the same. In the light of the above
discussion, this Court is of the view that the order needs to be
set aside. Accordingly this court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. The order dated 23.04.2024 passed on
I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.153/2023 by the Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, is set
aside and consequently, I.A.No.VII is allowed
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58032
CRP No. 453 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010368882024
and the plaint is rejected as barred by
limitation.
ii. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is
allowed.
iii. Pending I.As if any in the petition shall stand
closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
TS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24