SRI.JAYARAM vs SMT.GANGAHANUMAKKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
®
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
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. 839 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI.JAYARAM
S/O ANDHANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/A. NO. 1, BYRAVA NILAYA,
JAYARAM BUILDING, NEAR VISHAL
ENGLISH SCHOOL, SRIKANTAPURA,
BENGALURU 560 073.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.Y.R.SADASHIVAREDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.GANGAHANUMAKKA
W/O LATE NARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. LAKSHMI,
D/O LATE NARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
3. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O LATE NARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT
BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123
4. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE CHOWDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
5. SMT. RADHA,
D/O LATE CHOWDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
6. SRI. MUNIRAJU,
S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
7. SMT. PADMA,
D/O LATE CHOWDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 7 ARE
RESIDING AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123
8. SRI. NAGARAJU,
S/O NAGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/A BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562 123
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3)
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 01.08.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.IV IN OS
NO.423/2026 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, DISMISSING THE IA NO.IV
FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a), (b), (c) AND (d) R/W
SEC.151 OF CPC. FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
29.09.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CAV ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the
order dated 01.08.2026 passed on I.A.No.IV in
O.S.No.423/2026 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Nelamangala.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein
have filed a suit seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are the
absolute owners of the suit schedule property; that the
registered sale deed dated 05.08.2019, executed by defendant
Nos.1 to 4 in favor of defendant No.6 in respect of 25 guntas of
land out of the suit schedule property, is illegal, void, and not
binding on the plaintiffs; that the registered Gift Deed dated
05.08.2019, executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of
defendant No.5 in respect of 1 gunta of land in the suit
schedule property, is illegal, void, and not binding on the
plaintiffs; and that the defendants be directed to deliver vacant
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs by
removing themselves or anybody claiming under them.
3. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the land
bearing Old Sy.No.13, New Sy.No.71, measuring an extent of 2
acres, situated in Bommanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, was purchased in
a public auction by Sri. Late Narasaiah, the husband of the first
plaintiff and father of the second and third plaintiffs. Late
Narasaiah purchased the said land in a public auction
conducted by the revenue authorities, and thereafter, a grant
certificate in Form No.1 under the Mysore Land Revenue Rules,
1888, dated 30.07.1980, was issued in his favour. The said
document clearly establishes that the property was purchased
by late Narasaiah for valuable consideration. The said purchase
was made by Narasaiah out of his own earnings and resources,
and the property is his self-acquired property. He was in
possession of the property during his lifetime. After his death,
the plaintiffs succeeded to the property. Defendant No.1 is the
widow of deceased Chowdaiah, who was the brother of late
Narasaiah, and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the legal heirs of late
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
Chowdaiah. The defendants have no right or title to the
property. During his lifetime, Narasaiah sold 1 acre of land out
of the total extent of 2 acres. After such alienation, the
remaining extent of 1 acre came to be phoded and assigned as
per the revenue records. After the death of Narasaiah and
Chowdaiah, Jayamma, W/o late Chowdaiah and defendant
No.1, without having any manner of right, title or interest over
the property, falsely set up a claim that there was a family
partition between late Narasaiah and late Chowdaiah and that
the suit schedule property had fallen to the share of Chowdaiah
and managed to obtain illegal revenue entries and mutation in
their favour. Taking advantage of the said revenue entries,
defendant No.1 started representing herself as the owner of the
suit schedule property. Without any lawful title or authority,
defendant Nos.1 to 4 executed a registered sale deed in favour
of Jayaram, i.e., defendant No.6, in respect of an extent of 25
guntas out of the 1 acre of the suit schedule property. Besides
this, the defendants have illegally gifted 1 gunta of land to
Nagaraju, defendant No.5, by way of a registered Gift Deed,
and these transactions are without any right or title.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
Thereafter, the revenue records were mutated in the names of
defendant Nos.5 and 6. The plaintiffs had earlier approached
the competent authority under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)
Act, 1978, seeking restoration. The matter ultimately reached
the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.20602/2021 and, by
order dated 20.06.2023, the Court held that the land was
purchased in a public auction, that the PTCL Act was not
applicable, and observed that the dispute between the parties
had to be resolved before the competent Civil Court. Aggrieved
by the same, the plaintiffs preferred Writ Appeal No.920/2023,
which was dismissed on 24.11.2025, upholding the order
passed in W.P. No.20602/2021. The review petition was also
dismissed on 18.12.2026. Hence, they have filed the present
suit. In the said suit, the defendants have filed an application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the
plaint. It is the case of the defendants that the plaint fails to
disclose a valid cause of action against them, that the plaintiffs
have undervalued the suit and have not paid the requisite court
fee, that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, and that it
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
is barred by the provisions of law, including Order II Rule 2 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court, by the order
impugned, dismissed the application.
4. The Trial Court, while dismissing the application, has
observed that whether there was, in fact, a partition, whether
the property was self-acquired or ancestral, whether the
mutation entries were legally made, whether defendant Nos.1
to 4 had any transferable interest, whether the sale deed dated
05.08.2019 and the Gift Deed dated 05.08.2019 are valid and
binding, and whether defendant No.6 is a bona fide purchaser
are all disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence. Such disputed questions
cannot be decided in summary proceedings under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC. The contention of defendant No.6 that the
suit is barred by limitation also cannot be accepted at this
stage. The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that the cause of
action arose when illegal mutation entries were created, when
the impugned sale deed and Gift Deed came to be executed,
and when the High Court, while disposing of the PTCL
proceedings, observed that the parties should approach the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
competent Civil Court for adjudication of title. The plaint further
states that the cause of action is continuous in nature and that
the suit has been instituted within the prescribed period of
limitation. Whether the plaintiffs had knowledge of the
impugned transactions on an earlier date and whether the plea
of fraud postpones the commencement of limitation are mixed
questions of law and fact. Such issues cannot be adjudicated
without recording evidence. It is a settled proposition of law
that unless the suit appears, from the statements contained in
the plaint itself, to be barred by limitation, rejection under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC is impermissible. The plaint, by
itself, does not show that the suit is hopelessly barred by
limitation. Equally untenable is the contention regarding the bar
under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. The plaint itself refers to the
earlier proceedings initiated under the PTCL Act and the
subsequent writ proceedings before the High Court. Whether
the earlier suit and the present suit arise out of the same cause
of action, whether leave of the Court was necessary, whether
the withdrawal of the earlier suit attracts the provisions of
Order II Rule 2 or Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, and whether
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
the reliefs claimed in the present suit were available in the
earlier proceedings are all matters which require examination of
the pleadings and records of the previous litigation. Such issues
cannot be decided merely on the basis of the averments made
in the application filed by defendant No.6. Therefore, the plea
under Order II Rule 2 also does not furnish a ground for
rejection of the plaint. The objection relating to valuation of the
suit and payment of court fee is also without merit at this
stage. The plaintiffs have valued the suit under the provisions
of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act by asserting
that the suit schedule property continues to be agricultural
land. Whether the valuation adopted is correct, whether the
market value has to be adopted, and whether additional court
fee is payable are matters which require adjudication in
accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and
Suit Valuation Act. Even assuming that there is any defect in
valuation or insufficiency of court fee, Order VII Rule 11(b) and
(c) contemplates granting an opportunity to the plaintiff to
correct the valuation or make good the deficit court fee before
rejection of the plaint. In the present case, no such exercise
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
has yet become necessary, and the defendant has failed to
demonstrate that the plaint deserves outright rejection on this
ground. Defendant No.6 has heavily relied upon several
revenue records, mutation entries, partition documents, sale
deeds, Gift Deeds and orders passed in earlier proceedings to
contend that the plaintiffs have no subsisting right over the
property. However, this Court cannot take into consideration
the defendants' documents while exercising jurisdiction under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The genuineness, legality and
evidentiary value of those documents can be examined only
during the course of trial after both parties adduce their
evidence. If the Court undertakes such an exercise at this
preliminary stage, it would amount to conducting a mini-trial,
which is impermissible. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed
the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/defendant is
before this Court.
5. The learned Senior Counsel, representing the learned
counsel for the petitioner, submits that the plaint does not
disclose any cause of action against the defendant. Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 have pleaded that the suit schedule property is the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
self-acquired property of late Narasaiah, purchased in a public
auction. However, the very same respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed
W.P.No.20602/2021 before the High Court of Karnataka,
contending that the suit schedule property is ancestral property
and seeking relief under the PTCL Act. The said writ petition
was dismissed, holding that the PTCL Act is not applicable. The
writ appeal and review petition were also dismissed. The High
Court has given a clear finding that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have
no right over the property. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are now
taking a contradictory and inconsistent stand in the present
suit, which is not permissible. The plaintiffs have pleaded that
the cause of action arose when respondent No.4 created illegal
mutation entries by M.R. No.15/2008-09 dated 03.07.2009 and
the said sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had full knowledge of the said mutation
entries and the alleged partition between late Narasaiah and
late Chowdaiah as early as 1992 itself. Further, respondent
Nos.1 to 3 had also filed O.S.No.516/2019 in the year 2019
itself, seeking the very same relief of declaration in respect of
the subject matter, which suit was dismissed on 06.02.2021.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
Hence, the present suit, filed in the year 2026, is hopelessly
barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
6. It is an admitted fact that respondent Nos.1 to 3 had
filed OS No.516/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at
Nelamangala for the relief of declaration of title and other
reliefs in the year 2019, which was dismissed. Hence, the plaint
does not disclose any subsisting cause of action. The trial court
also failed to see the law laid down under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC. It is submitted that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have
pleaded in the plaint that the suit schedule property is the self-
acquired property of late Narasaiah purchased in a public
auction. However, the very same respondents had earlier
pleaded before the Revenue Authority and the Hon'ble High
Court in W.P.No.20602/2021 that the suit schedule property is
an ancestral property and sought relief under the PTCL Act. It is
submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and
further the Court had not granted any liberty to the petitioner
to avail the appropriate remedy. The trial court has failed to
appreciate all these aspects and rejected the application. It is
submitted that the order impugned needs to be set aside.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that, while dismissing the application, the trial court
held that all these disputes have to be decided by a competent
Civil Court, and that in the writ appeal the Court affirmed the
order of the learned single judge. In those circumstances, the
contention that liberty is required cannot be accepted. It is
further submitted that, in the writ petition, the reference to the
earlier suit and other proceedings is a question of whether the
issue, i.e., in the present suit, is covered by the earlier suit,
whether there are any findings in the writ appeal, or whether it
has to be considered. It is a question of res judicata , and
cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Smt. Kalyani and Another Vs. M/s. Kanyakumari
1
Builders Private Limited and others , and relied on another
judgment in the case of Keshav Sood Vs. Kirti Pradeep
2
Sood & Ors
1
RFA No.1595/2021 D.D.
2
Civil Appeal No.5841/2023 dated 12.09.2023
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
Relying on this, it is submitted that the trial Court has
rightly rejected the plaint and no interference is called for the
order passed by the trial Court.
9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel
representing the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the respondents, perused the material on record.
Once the writ petition, Writ Appeal, and review petition were
dismissed, it cannot be said that every dispute relating to the
property stood finally adjudicated. The correctness of the
dismissal of the earlier suit must be examined in light of the
nature of the earlier proceedings, and the questions decided
therein. The earlier writ proceedings arose in the context of the
applicability of the PTCL Act. The High Court held that the
property was purchased at a public auction and the proviso of
the Act will not apply. That finding is pertaining to a relief under
a particular statute. It does not, by itself, establish that every
competing claim of title between the parties was finally
adjudicated. The distinction is material. A determination that
the PTCL Act does not apply to a transaction is different from
an adjudication declaring which of the contesting parties has
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
title to the property. The former concerns the statutory basis of
the proceedings, whereas the latter ordinarily requires an
examination of the documents through which the parties claim,
the nature of the rights acquired, and the legal effect of
subsequent transactions. In this context, the observation in the
writ petition regarding adjudication by a competent civil court
assumes significance. Having determined the question arising
under the PTCL Act, the Court recognized that the remaining
dispute concerning civil rights was a matter for adjudication by
the civil court.
10. The learned Senior Counsel placed considerable
emphasis on the fact that the Division Bench, while dismissing
the Writ Appeal, did not expressly grant liberty to institute a
civil suit. This submission overlooks the distinction between the
right to institute a suit and permission granted by a court to
pursue a remedy. The jurisdiction of a competent Civil Court to
adjudicate a title dispute does not arise from liberty granted by
a court; rather, it flows from Section 9 of the CPC, subject to
any express or implied statutory bar. A party asserting a civil
right is not ordinarily required to obtain permission from the
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
High Court before approaching the Civil Court. The observation
in the order passed in the writ petition that the parties should
approach a competent Civil Court was, therefore, not the
source of their right to sue. It merely recognized the
appropriate forum for adjudication of disputes that were not
finally determined in the writ proceedings. Consequently, the
absence of a fresh or express grant of liberty in the Writ Appeal
cannot, by itself, render the subsequent civil suit incompetent.
What matters is whether the Division Bench finally adjudicated
the very issue the plaintiff now seeks to raise. The Division
Bench's findings while dismissing the appeal do not
automatically mean the entire controversy concerning title was
concluded. The legal effect of those findings depends on the
questions before the Division Bench, the issues necessarily
decided to dispose of the appeal, and the scope of the
judgment read as a whole. The dismissal of the review petition
does not alter this position. It brings finality to the order sought
to be reviewed. However, it does not enlarge the scope of the
questions decided in the Writ Appeal, nor does it convert
findings concerning the applicability of the PTCL Act into a
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
decree terminating a civil suit. The defendants are undoubtedly
entitled to rely upon findings that have attained finality. The
plaintiffs cannot reopen a question conclusively decided against
them merely by changing the form of proceedings. Equally, the
finality attached to an earlier judgment must be confined to
matters actually and necessarily adjudicated. It cannot be
extended to matters which the earlier court left for
determination by a competent forum.
11. The petitioner further contends that the suit is barred
by the principles of res judicata . This objection requires
consideration of Section 11 of the CPC and the limited
jurisdiction exercised by a Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC. For the plea of res judicata to succeed, it must be
established that the matter directly and substantially in issue in
the subsequent proceedings was also directly and substantially
in issue between the same parties, or parties claiming under
them, in the earlier proceedings, and that such matter was
heard and finally decided by a competent Court. Merely
because the property and the parties are substantially the
same, the subsequent suit does not automatically become
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
barred. The Court must ascertain what was the issue in the
earlier proceedings and what was finally decided therein. This
assumes particular significance where the earlier proceedings
arose under a special statute and the subsequent suit seeks a
declaration of civil rights.
12. In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal
3
Kamat & Ors the Supreme Court considered whether a plaint
could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the
ground of res judicata . The Supreme Court held that the
determination of such a plea requires an examination of the
pleadings, issues, and earlier proceedings, which cannot be
undertaken on the basis of the plaint alone. Such an exercise
falls outside the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The
same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Keshav
Sood’s case, referred to supra. In the present case, accepting
the petitioner's contention would require the Court to examine
the relief sought in the writ petition, the scope of the
controversy considered by the learned Single Judge, the
grounds urged in the Writ Appeal, the findings recorded by the
3
AIR 2021 SC 3802
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
Division Bench, the effect of the declaratory relief, and the
earlier suit. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken merely
because the defendant asserts that the earlier judgments
operate as res judicata. The learned Trial Judge considered the
scope of Order II Rule 2 of CPC and the deficit in court fees and
was justified in declining to reject the plaint on the ground of
res judicata. The order does not deprive the defendants of their
right to raise an objection in the suit. It clearly recognises that
the application cannot be decided within the limited scope of
enquiry contemplated under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no
grounds to interfere with the well-considered order passed by
the Trial Court. In that view of the matter, this Court passes
the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition
is dismissed .
ii. However, it is made clear that this
Court has not made any observations
on the merits of the matter and the
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61116
CRP No. 839 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010651222026
trial court shall consider the case in
accordance with law.
iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand
closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
PKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
*AK