SRI. G.N. NAGENDRA KUMAR vs G. RAMESH,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
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. 38 OF 2026 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G.N. NAGENDRA KUMAR
S/O LATE G. NAGARAJA RAO,
AGED 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.55, 5TH MAIN,
3RD CROSS, I. W. LAYOUT,
SHANKAR NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT POST,
BENGALURU-560 096
R/AT SAI BABA P.G. ACCOMMODATION,
ND
2 MAIN ROAD, SHIVANAGAR,
NEAR WARRIOR BAKERY, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010
2. SMT. K.V.LALITHA,
W/O LATE G. NAGARAJA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
TH
RESIDING AT NO. 55, 5 MAIN,
3RD CROSS, I. W. LAYOUT,
SHANKAR NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT POST,
BENGALURU-560 096
3. SMT. G.N.VANAJA,
D/O LATE G. NAGARAJA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
TH
RESIDING AT NO. 55, 5 MAIN,
RD
3 CROSS, I. W. LAYOUT,
SHANKAR NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT POST,
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
BENGALURU-560 096
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR B M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G.RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
S/O LATE GUNDU RAO,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
2. R.KUSUMA,
W/O G.RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT
NO. 113, AJITHAYA,
BEHIND 80FT MAIN ROAD,
ITI LAYOUT, MALLATHALLI,
ND
NAGARBHAVI 2 STAGE,
BENGALURU- 560 056
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAMATHA D.N., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2025, PASSED ON IA NO. II
IN OS NO. 1696/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, REJECTING
THE IA NO. II FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC. 151
OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
07.10.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
CAV ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2025 passed in
I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.1696/2023 by the XXIV Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-6), the
petitioner/defendant is before this Court.
2. The respondents herein are the son-in-law of the
petitioner herein and his father. After the death of the father,
his legal representatives (LRs) were brought on record. The suit
is filed seeking the relief of directing defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to
pay an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest at 24%
per annum on the said amount from the date of
possession/lawful occupation of the plaintiffs at the schedule
property, since December 2012, and to grant the costs of the
suit.
3. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that defendant
No.1 is the son of defendant No.2. The plaintiff' s daughter
married defendant No.1 on 12.08.2005, and they were blessed
with a child. Until 2020, they were residing at the matrimonial
home. Due to mental harassment meted out to the plaintiff’ s
daughter and the child, the plaintiff’ s daughter, along with the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
grandchild, left the matrimonial home in August 2020 and has
since been residing with the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. On
23.01.2003, defendant No. 1 purchased the schedule property,
which was then a vacant site bearing No. 113, old No. 2521,
measuring 2, 625 sq. ft., situated at ITI Layout, Mallathahalli
Village, within the BBMP limits, Bangalore. In September 2011,
the plaintiffs sold their house property at Lake View Apartment,
Kengeri Satellite Town, for Rs. 26,00,000/- and, along with the
retirement benefits received by plaintiff No. 2 and their other
savings, planned to use the said amount to lease a house or
invest in an alternative property. However, defendant No. 1,
with an ulterior motive, convinced the plaintiffs to invest their
savings from the sale of their apartment and to use the same
to construct a building on the vacant land standing in the name
of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 told the plaintiffs that, as
their daughter was his wife, after the plaintiffs' death the said
house would belong to their daughter and grandson, and hence
there was no need for any written agreement or transfer of title
to the property in respect of the said offer. The plaintiffs
believed this, as their daughter and grandson were residing
with defendant No.1 at the said time. Hence, the plaintiffs
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
thought that, after their death, the house property would
remain with their daughter and grandson and that their
investment would not be wasted, which would ultimately
benefit their daughter and grandson. Defendant No.1 further
promised that, if any financial need arose for the plaintiffs, he
would repay the amount spent on construction by the plaintiffs.
Defendant No.1 further assured the plaintiffs that they could
reside in the said house as long as they were alive and that
defendant Nos.1 and 2 would not disturb their peaceful
possession of the schedule property. Believing the false
promises made by the defendants and considering their
daughter' s future, the plaintiffs decided to invest their hard-
earned money and construct a house on the schedule property.
4. It is stated that the plaintiffs have spent an amount of
Rs.40,00,000/- towards the construction of the house by
obtaining a house plan from an architect in May 2012, along
with quotations and other documents required for construction.
They have spent an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- towards
construction and Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the interiors of the
house through cash, NEFT and cheques. Even if defendant No.1
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
had made any payment, plaintiff No.1 immediately returned the
said amount to defendant No.1 by way of cash. Defendant No.1
initially promised the plaintiffs that he would invest money
towards completing the interiors of the house, but defendant
No.1 failed to keep up his promise, and hence, the plaintiffs
were also forced to spend money to complete the interiors of
the house by further investing some more of their hard-earned
money. The Gruha Pravesham ceremony of the house was
celebrated on 30.11.2012. The plaintiffs also bore the costs of
the Gruha Pravesham rituals, amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-, and
they themselves performed the Gruha Pravesham ceremony.
Since 2012, they have regularly paid taxes, electricity bills and
water bills and have taken care of the repairs and maintenance
of the schedule property. The plaintiffs have produced certain
documents, receipts, invoices and purchase orders generated
during the construction. They are searching for other bills
generated during the construction, which were misplaced while
shifting the house, and once the plaintiffs get hold of the same,
they will produce them. Due to the marital dispute between
defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs’ daughter, the plaintiffs’
daughter and grandson left the matrimonial home and started
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
residing with the plaintiffs at the schedule property in August
2020. The first and second defendants are aware of the fact
that there are three cases pending before the Family Court at
Bangalore relating to the matrimonial dispute between
defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs’ daughter. The plaintiffs’
daughter has filed M.C. No. 3281/2020 for divorce against
defendant No.1, and defendant No.1 has filed M.C. No.
4791/2020 for restitution of conjugal rights. The plaintiffs’
daughter and son have filed a petition for maintenance and
criminal miscellaneous proceedings. Defendant No.1 had
executed a gift deed in respect of the schedule property in
favour of defendant No.2 and further instigated defendant No.2
with an ulterior motive by making false claims. Defendant No.2
sent two legal notices dated 23.01.2021 and 28.01.2021 to the
plaintiffs, seeking to purchase the schedule property from the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sent befitting replies to both the legal
notices issued by defendant No.2. Thereafter, they started
abusing the plaintiffs and demanding that they hand over the
documents relating to the house, such as electricity bills, water
bills, tax-paid receipts, etc., and created a huge nuisance by
abusing the plaintiffs in vulgar language. In that regard, a
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. Even though defendant
Nos. 1 and 2 are well aware of the fact that the plaintiffs have
invested their hard-earned money to the tune of Rs.
40,00,000/- to construct a residential building over the
schedule property, defendant No.1 executed a gift deed in
favour of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs are senior citizens, and
they have only one daughter and nobody to support them.
Further, they have invested all their life savings to construct a
residential building over the schedule property and are left with
very little savings for their livelihood in their old age. Both the
plaintiffs are senior citizens and, in their old age, are suffering
from age-related diseases. In the said situation, defendant
Nos.1 and 2 have cheated the plaintiffs and instituted a false
case against them. The plaintiffs have suffered financially after
investing their money and entire life savings in the construction
of the residential building over the schedule property, and now
they are in need of funds to lead a decent life in their old age.
At present, they have also taken on the burden of looking after
their daughter and grandson, who are residing at the schedule
property. Defendant No.1 had initially promised the plaintiffs
that he would repay the construction expenses when a financial
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
need arose for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs orally requested
defendant No.1 many times to return their money, but the
defendants refused to do so.
5. It is stated that when the defendants refused to return
the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- spent by the plaintiffs towards
construction, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated
17.12.2022 to the defendants, demanding that both the
defendants return the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- along with
interest to the plaintiffs, which they had spent towards the
construction of the house over the schedule property. However,
the defendants gave an untenable and false reply dated
30.12.2022 to the legal notice sent by the plaintiffs and refused
to comply with the demand made by the plaintiffs in the legal
notice dated 17.12.2022. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained
to file the suit for recovery of money from the defendants.
6. In the said suit, an application is filed by the defendants
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the
plaint. It is the specific case of the defendants that there was
no verbal discussion, signed agreement, contract or any
document whatsoever between the plaintiffs and the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
defendants regarding the construction of the residential house
or contribution of money by the plaintiffs. No financial
transactions whatsoever have taken place between the
plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs have failed to
substantiate all the averments made in the plaint regarding the
amounts of money mentioned in various paragraphs, without
producing any pertinent, supporting, corroborative or any other
legal documentary evidence to substantiate their claim. There
is no factual analysis to corroborate the basis of the plaintiffs’
claim of having spent up to Rs. 50,00,000/-. The plaintiffs have
allegedly averred in the plaint that certain documents were
misplaced while shifting the house and that once they get hold
of the same, they will produce them, which clearly shows that
there are no documents. It is stated that the cause of action is
a bundle of facts, which the plaintiffs are required to prove
before the court of law in order to succeed in obtaining a
particular relief, and the issuance of a legal notice or giving a
reply would not constitute a cause of action. It is submitted
that, as per Article 22 of the Limitation Act, any suit for
recovery has to be filed within three years from the date on
which the cause of action arose. The said period of limitation
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
cannot be condoned. It is stated that the plaintiffs spent the
money in the year 2012, whereas the notice was issued in
2022, and it cannot be said that the cause of action arose then.
It is submitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected.
7. The Trial Court , by the order impugned, rejected the
application. While rejecting the application, the Trial Court
observed that, as per the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC,
while considering an application for rejection of the plaint, the
Court has to consider only the plaint averments and other
documents produced by the plaintiffs. The defence taken by the
defendants and the documents produced by the defendants
cannot be considered while adjudicating the application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Moreover, in the present case, on
perusal of the plaint averments, there is a clear cause of action
made out by the plaintiffs for adjudicating the matter on
merits. Further, it is a well-settled principle of law that the
issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. On a
plain reading of the plaint averments, it does not appear that
the suit is barred by limitation. The question as to whether the
suit is barred by limitation or whether the cause of action
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
actually arose to the plaintiffs after the issuance of the legal
notice needs to be considered only after a full-fledged trial of
the case.The contention of the defendants that the suit does
not disclose a cause of action and that it is barred by limitation
is liable to be rejected, as it does not hold any water.
Accordingly, the Trial Court rejected the application. Aggrieved
thereby, the defendants are before this Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits
that the Trial Court has failed to consider the application filed
by the defendants and, in a mechanical manner, without
appreciating any of the facts, dismissed the application. It is
submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable and the
same needs to be set aside. It is stated that the Court has
failed to appreciate the plaint averments, which are wrapped in
a bundle of facts ingeniously stated to bring the cause of action
within the period of limitation, which is otherwise barred by
limitation. On a bare perusal of the plaint averments, it is clear
that the cause of action is illusory and has been stated through
averments intelligently drafted to camouflage an illusory cause
of action as a real cause of action. The impugned order is not
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
sustainable in law, and the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is
submitted that the Court has failed to exercise its discretion
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, as the suit is
prima facie vexatious and frivolous, when the suit itself is not
maintainable as the reliefs sought are barred by limitation. It is
submitted that, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs spent
the money in the year 2012 and the suit was filed on
10.03.2023, and thus, the suit is hopelessly barred by
limitation. It is submitted that the plaint does not disclose a
cause of action and that the Trial Court has failed to consider
all these aspects. Hence, the impugned order needs to be set
aside.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits
that the Trial Court has rightly considered all the aspects and
rightly rejected the application as the limitation is a pure
question of fact and law and there are no grounds to interfere
with the well-considered order passed by the Trial Court and
the CRP is liable to be dismissed.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
10. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the material on record. In the light of the submissions,
the question that falls for consideration is before this Court is:
“Whether the plaintiff's right to recover the
construction expenditure arose in 2012, or
whether the subsequent execution of the
gift deed in 2020, allegedly defeating the
assurances upon which the construction
was undertaken, could give rise to a cause
of action within the limitation?”
11. The scope of enquiry under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is
well settled. The Court must examine the plaint as a whole,
accepting the material facts pleaded therein as true. It cannot
undertake an enquiry into the correctness of those allegations
or consider the defence of the defendants. At the same time,
the Court must ascertain whether the pleaded facts disclose an
enforceable cause of action and whether the suit is barred by
any law. The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized
the necessity of a meaningful reading of the plaint and
reiterated that, where the bar of limitation is apparent from the
plaint itself, rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d)
CPC is warranted.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
12. Coming to the present case, the plaintiffs claim to have
undertaken the construction of a house on land belonging to
their son-in-law upon certain oral assurances. The assurances,
as pleaded, relate not merely to the repayment of money but
also to their residence in the house during their lifetime and the
future enjoyment of the property. The transaction, therefore,
cannot be examined in isolation as though the plaintiffs had
simply advanced money to the defendant in 2012. It is not
unusual for parents to invest their savings in establishing a
home for their daughter, relying upon assurances made within
the family. Such arrangements are often founded upon trust
rather than formal documentation. The law does not refuse to
recognise an obligation merely because it arises from an oral
understanding between family members. Whether the
assurances were actually made, whether they created
enforceable rights, and related matters require proof. At this
stage, the Court must proceed on the basis that the assurances
pleaded were given. The construction was completed, and
Gruha Pravesham was performed on 30.11.2012. The
expenditure sought to be recovered had, therefore, been
incurred by that date. However, the date on which the
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
expenditure was incurred does not necessarily determine when
every right arising from the arrangement became
unenforceable. If the defendant had undertaken an
unconditional obligation to repay the construction expenditure,
limitation would have to be determined with reference to the
date on which the obligation became due. If, on the other
hand, repayment was connected with the continued enjoyment
of the house or the fulfilment of the other assurances, the
alleged failure of those assurances may have a bearing upon
the accrual of the cause of action. The execution of the gift
deed on 20.12.2020 assumes significance in this context. The
plaintiffs' case is that they constructed the house believing that
they would be permitted to reside therein throughout their
lifetime and that the property would thereafter go to their
daughter. The subsequent transfer of the property in favour of
the defendant's father is alleged to have defeated the
arrangement upon which they acted. Whether that transaction
amounted to a breach of an enforceable obligation is a matter
to be determined, but it cannot be ignored when examining the
plaint. The plaintiffs have chosen to seek recovery of the
construction expenditure rather than enforcement of the
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
assurances concerning the property. The relief sought must
undoubtedly have a legal foundation. However, the fact that
the plaintiffs seek recovery of money does not necessarily
mean that their claim must be treated as a simple loan or an
unconditional demand for reimbursement arising in 2012. The
substance of the transaction, as disclosed in the plaint, must
determine the nature of the claim. Article 23 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, prescribes three years for recovery of money
payable to the plaintiff for money paid by the defendant,
commencing from the date of payment, where the claim is
founded upon a breach of a contractual obligation. Article 55
may be relevant, prescribing three years from the date when
the contract is broken. The applicability of either provision
depends upon the true nature of the obligations pleaded. The
Court cannot select an article of limitation merely by referring
to the year in which the construction was completed, without
considering the arrangement upon which the expenditure was
allegedly incurred. The plaintiffs have also sought interest at
12% per annum from 2012. These circumstances are relevant
but not conclusive. The date from which interest is claimed
does not necessarily determine the date on which the right to
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
sue accrued. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest for
the period claimed is a separate question that must be
determined in accordance with the terms of the alleged
agreement and the applicable law. The legal notice issued in
2022 does not, by itself, create a fresh cause of action. A
demand notice cannot ordinarily revive a claim that has already
become barred by limitation. However, the plaintiffs do not rely
on the notice in isolation. They refer to the matrimonial
disputes and, more particularly, the gift deed executed on
20.12.2020, as the circumstances that led them to seek
recovery. The legal significance of those events must be
examined in the context of that period. The distinction between
the date of expenditure and the date of breach is important. A
person may incur expenditure under an arrangement intended
to operate over a period of time. Where the arrangement is
subsequently breached, the right to seek an appropriate
remedy may arise upon such breach. Whether recovery of the
expenditure is an available remedy in the present case is a
question that cannot be conclusively determined merely by
examining the date on which the money was spent.
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
13. The gift deed was executed on 20.12.2020, and the
suit was instituted on 10.03.2023. Thus, if the plaintiffs'
monetary claim is legally founded on the alleged breach of the
oral arrangement occasioned by the gift deed, the suit was
instituted within three years of that event. In such
circumstances, the plaint cannot be held to be barred by
limitation merely because the construction was completed in
2012. The petitioner ultimately has to establish that the
promise to repay was unconditional and that the amount
became recoverable in 2012 itself. The plaintiffs may contend
that their right to seek recovery arose only when the
assurances concerning the house were defeated. The resolution
of these competing positions depends upon the precise nature
of the oral arrangement and the legal consequences flowing
from it. These matters cannot be finally adjudicated in an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if the plaint reasonably
supports such a contention. It is also necessary to distinguish
the maintainability of the suit from the plaintiffs' entitlement to
a decree. The plaintiffs must establish the expenditure, the
assurances allegedly given, the obligation arising therefrom,
and the basis upon which they seek reimbursement. The mere
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
fact that the money was spent on the property belonging to
their son-in-law does not automatically entitle them to recover
it. Equally, the execution of the gift deed does not, by itself,
establish liability. These questions remain open for
adjudication. The Trial Court was, therefore, justified in
declining to reject the plaint, as it discloses a claim for recovery
arising from the alleged failure of the oral arrangement
following the execution of the gift deed. At this stage, the Court
cannot conclude that the suit is barred by limitation without
determining the nature of the obligation and the event which
rendered it enforceable. This Court is conscious that litigation
arising out of strained family relationships often carries
grievances extending beyond the immediate relief sought.
However, the adjudication must remain confined to the legal
rights asserted. The plaintiffs cannot succeed merely because
their expectations are disappointed, and the defendants cannot
secure rejection of the plaint merely because the expenditure
was incurred several years before the alleged breach. The
rights of the parties must be determined upon the agreement
pleaded, the evidence adduced, and the applicable law. In
these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61118
CRP No. 38 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010029802026
with the well-considered order passed by the Trial Court.
Hence, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is
dismissed .
ii. However, it is made clear that the Trial Court
shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced
by any of the observations made by this
Court, which are only for the purpose of
deciding the present application.
iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
PKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
*AK