Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3085-DB
RFA No. 200094 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200094 OF 2024 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MARIYAM AYESHA
D/O LATE MD. MOAZZAM ALI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: H.NO.1-114/B/12,
NEAR AIWAN-E-SHAHI MASJID, KALABURAGI,
NOW AT KWALITY SAPPHIRE, NIBM ROAD,
KUBERA GARDEN, KONDHWA PUNE-MS-410001.
2. SMT. MARIYA KHATIJA
D/O LATE MD. MOAZZAM ALI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: H.NO.1-114/B/12,
NEAR AIWAN-E-SHAHI MASJID, KALABURAGI,
NOW AT MARIYA KHATIJA PREMIER INSPIRA ELITE 403,
TH
5 CROSS NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR, NAVODAYA NAGAR,
POORNIMA NAGAR, AREKERE BENGALURU,
THROUGH THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SRI. TIRUPATI S/O GURANNA HATTIKATIGI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, RESIDENCE OF HOUSE NO.1-5,
MAIN ROAD BAZAR, MUNAYA BASHA DARGA,
SIDRE AREA SAGAR, TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI,
NOW AT OZA LAYOUT KALABURAGI-585101.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A. M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3085-DB
RFA No. 200094 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. MOHAMMED YOUSUF ALI
S/O LATE MOHAMMED KHURSHEED ALI,
AGE: 62 YEARS,
2. SADIYA PARVEEN
D/O LATE MOHAMMED KHURSHEED ALI,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
3. KHUDDUSIYA JABEEN
D/O LATE MOHAMMED KHURSHEED ALI,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
4. SAFIYA YASHMIYAN
D/O LATE MOHAMMED KHURSHEED ALI,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
5. NAIDUNISA BEGUM
W/O LATE MOHAMMED KHURSHEED ALI,
AGE: 82 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O: NEAR AIWAN-E-SHAHI MASJID,
PDA COLLEGE ROAD, STATION BAZAR WARD,
KALABURAGI-585101.
6. SHOUKAT PATEL S/O LATE MOHAMMED ALI PATEL,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SHAHABAZ COLONY,
OLD JEWARGI ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585101.
7. SAJIDA PATEL W/O SHOUKAT PATEL,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SHAHABAZ COLONY,
OLD JEWARGI ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585101.
8. SRI. ABHIMANYA K.S. S/O KARNAPPA,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
R/O: PRATAPA TOWER
NEAR RUDRAWADI HOSPITAL,
OLD JEWARGI ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585101.
9. BASANNA S/O MALLAPPA NAGARGUNDA,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAKKERA, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI-584101.
10. SMT. SITABAI W/O KARNAPPA,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: PRATAPA TOWER
NEAR RUDRAWADI HOSPITAL,
OLD JEWARGI ROAD, KALABURAGI-584101.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3085-DB
RFA No. 200094 of 2024
HC-KAR
11. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI G.V.
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: 174 SHANTI NAGAR,
KALABURAGI,
NOW AT SANTOSH COLONY,
NEAR SHAKTI KIRANA STORE,
KALABURAGI-584101.
12. DR. GIRISH SWAMY S/O MAHANTAYYA SWAMY,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O: BASAWESHWAR COLONY,
KALABURAGI-584101.
13. SMT. SUNITA W/O BASAPPA HIRE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: C/O H.NO.8-9301/27B,
HUMNABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI-584101.
14. DEVAKI W/O KEERTEPPA AGATEERTHA,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
15. KEERTEPPA S/O HANAMANTRAYA AGATEERTHA,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
BOTH R/O: SHARANA SIDD NILAYA,
H.NO.1814/6, VIDYA NAGAR,
KALABURAGI-584101.
16. SMT. SHOBHA W/O REVU JADHAV,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: H.NO.8-1545/201/18,
HUMNABAD ROAD,
NEAR PUTANI KARKHANA,
KALABURAGI-584101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR MALIPATIL., ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 & R7;
V/O DATED 04.07.2024 NOTICE TO R1 TO R5 &
R8 TO R16 ARE D/W)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2024
PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE KALABURAGI, IN
O.S.NO.72/2024 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3085-DB
RFA No. 200094 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The appellants are before this Court seeking the
following reliefs:-
“To set-aside the order dated 04.06.2024 passed
by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge Kalaburagi, in
O.S.No.72/2024 by allowing this appeal with cost
in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The appellants had filed a suit in O.S.No.72/2024
before the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kalaburagi,
seeking for the following reliefs:-
rd
i. It is declaration that the plaintiffs entitled 1/3
shares in the suit schedule – property and put
them separate possession by division in the suit
schedule property metes and bounds.
ii. It be declaration that the gift deeds, and sale
deeds in respect of the suit plots are null and void
and same is not binding on plaintiffs.
iii. The relief of permanent injunction restraining
the defendants from alienating, creating any
charge over the suit schedule property.
iv. Cost of the suit be awarded.
v. Any other relief to which the plaintiffs is entitled
to be passed in the interest of justice.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3085-DB
RFA No. 200094 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. In the said suit, an application came to be filed under
clauses (a), (c) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1958, seeking rejection of the plaint.
The Trial Court, by its order dated 04.06.2024,
having allowed the said application and rejected the
plaint, the appellants are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend
that the Trial Court has erred in entertaining and
allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
on grounds which are not legally sustainable within
the framework of the said provision. It is submitted
that the objections raised pertained to non-joinder of
necessary parties, bar of limitation, and alleged
insufficiency of court fee.
5. According to him, non-joinder of parties is not a
ground falling within the ambit of Order VII Rule 11
CPC and would require adjudication in the course of
trial. It is further submitted that the question of
proper valuation and court fee is a mixed question of
law and fact, and unless the same is conclusively
determined, the plaint cannot be rejected at the
threshold.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3085-DB
RFA No. 200094 of 2024
HC-KAR
6. Elaborating further, it is contended that the suit
being one for partition, the plaintiffs have rightly paid
a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- under Section 35(2) of
the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
Insofar as the relief of declaration in respect of the
gift deeds and sale deeds is concerned, the same has
been valued at Rs.1,000/- each under Section 24(d)
of the Act and court fee of Rs.25/- per document has
been paid. The relief of injunction is also stated to
have been properly valued under Section 26(c) of the
Act.
7. It is lastly contended that the Trial Court has
committed an error in considering the application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without there being a
written statement on record.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.6 and 7 would submit that a plain and
meaningful reading of the plaint itself demonstrates
that the suit is ex facie barred by limitation. It is
pointed out that the plaintiffs’ father had executed a
registered General Power of Attorney in the year
1994, which, according to the plaintiffs themselves,
was acted upon by defendant No.6 after the death of
their father in the year 2000, resulting in execution
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3085-DB
RFA No. 200094 of 2024
HC-KAR
of gift deeds and sale deeds in or about the year
2002. Despite this, no action was taken by the
plaintiffs for more than two decades and the suit has
been filed only in the year 2024.
9. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have
deliberately suppressed material particulars relating
to the impugned transactions, including dates of
execution and identities of purchasers, and have
attempted to create an artificial cause of action by
pleading that they came to know of the transactions
only on 10.11.2023. Such pleading, it is submitted, is
a classic instance of clever drafting intended to
circumvent the law of limitation. It is also submitted
that several third-party purchasers, who are
necessary and proper parties, have not been
impleaded, and the suit is therefore fundamentally
defective. On these grounds, it is contended that the
Trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon a careful perusal of the material on record, this
Court is of the considered view that the impugned
order does not warrant interference.
11. It is trite that while considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3085-DB
RFA No. 200094 of 2024
HC-KAR
confine itself to the averments made in the plaint
and the documents relied upon therein. Neither the
defence nor any extraneous material can be taken
into account. This principle also answers the
contention of the appellants that the application
could not have been considered in the absence of a
written statement. The very scheme of Order VII
Rule 11 makes it clear that the filing of a written
statement is not a condition precedent for
consideration of such an application, since the inquiry
is confined to the plaint itself.
12. Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC mandates rejection of a
plaint where, from the statements contained in the
plaint, the suit appears to be barred by any law. The
law of limitation squarely falls within the scope of
this provision. Therefore, if on a meaningful reading
of the plaint it is evident that the suit is barred by
limitation, the Court is not only empowered but duty-
bound to reject the plaint at the threshold.
13. In the present case, the plaint itself discloses that
the father of the plaintiffs had executed a registered
General Power of Attorney in the year 1994. It is
further averred that after his death in the year 2000,
defendant No.6 misused the said power of attorney
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3085-DB
RFA No. 200094 of 2024
HC-KAR
and executed gift deeds and sale deeds in respect of
the suit property. Though the plaint is conspicuously
silent as to the specific dates of such transactions,
the plaintiffs have not denied that the transactions
are of considerable antiquity. On the contrary,
material placed on record, including mutation entries
produced by the plaintiffs themselves, indicates that
such transactions took place in or around the year
2002.
14. The plaintiffs seek to overcome the bar of limitation
by pleading that they became aware of the said
transactions only on 10.11.2023 and have treated
the said date as the cause of action. This plea, in the
considered view of this Court, is wholly untenable.
Registered documents are matters of public record
and constitute constructive notice to all concerned.
Once such documents are registered and acted upon,
and consequential mutation entries are effected in
revenue records, the law imputes knowledge of such
transactions to the parties concerned. A litigant
cannot be permitted to plead ignorance of registered
transactions for an indefinite period and thereby
defeat the law of limitation.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3085-DB
RFA No. 200094 of 2024
HC-KAR
15. In a suit seeking to challenge registered gift deeds
and sale deeds, the right to sue accrues when such
documents are executed and registered, or at the
latest when they are acted upon. The limitation
period cannot be postponed by pleading belated
knowledge, particularly when the circumstances
indicate that the plaintiffs, by exercising reasonable
diligence, could and ought to have been aware of the
transactions. The plea of knowledge as of
10.11.2023 is, therefore, nothing but a device to
overcome the statutory bar.
16. The manner in which the plaint is drafted, by
suppressing material particulars such as dates of
execution and details of transactions, and by
projecting a recent cause of action, is a clear
instance of clever drafting and legal stratagem
employed to create an illusion of a subsisting cause
of action. Courts have consistently held that such
drafting cannot be permitted to defeat substantive
law, particularly the law of limitation. The Court is
entitled to read the plaint meaningfully and to
ascertain the real substance of the claim rather than
being misled by the form in which it is presented.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3085-DB
RFA No. 200094 of 2024
HC-KAR
17. The issue of non-joinder of necessary parties, though
not by itself a ground under Order VII Rule 11 CPC,
assumes significance in the present case in the
context of the suppression of material facts. The
plaintiffs themselves admit that several sale deeds
have been executed in favour of third parties. During
the course of arguments, it is submitted that more
than sixty such transactions have taken place. Yet,
the plaint is completely silent as to the particulars of
these transactions and the identities of the
purchasers. Such suppression is not incidental but
deliberate, and is clearly intended to avoid the
consequences that would flow from impleading such
parties, including the exposure of the suit to the bar
of limitation.
18. Even otherwise, the omission to implead such
purchasers does not cure the fundamental defect of
limitation. A suit which is barred by limitation cannot
be revived or sustained by subsequently adding
parties. Therefore, the issue of non-joinder, though
relevant, does not alter the conclusion that the suit is
not maintainable.
19. Insofar as the question of court fee is concerned, the
stand taken by the plaintiffs that they are in joint
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3085-DB
RFA No. 200094 of 2024
HC-KAR
possession of the suit property is directly
contradicted by their own pleadings. The plaintiffs
categorically assert that the property has been
alienated in favour of third parties and that such
purchasers are in possession. They have also sought
the relief of recovery of possession. These averments
unequivocally establish that the plaintiffs are not in
possession of the suit property.
20. In such circumstances, the valuation of the suit
under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and
Suits Valuation Act, on the footing of joint
possession, is wholly misconceived. The suit ought to
have been valued on the market value of the
property, and ad valorem court fee paid accordingly.
The undervaluation of the suit and insufficiency of
court fee thus constitute an additional ground for
rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c)
CPC.
21. On a cumulative consideration of the pleadings in the
plaint, it is evident that the suit is ex facie barred by
limitation, that material facts have been deliberately
suppressed, and that the valuation of the suit is
incorrect. The Trial Court has, therefore, rightly
exercised its jurisdiction in rejecting the plaint.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3085-DB
RFA No. 200094 of 2024
HC-KAR
22. No ground is made out for interference in appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
23. For the aforesaid reasons and the reasons attributed
by the Trial Court, we do not find any infirmities in
the order impugned. As such, the appeal stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
KJJ/NB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 46
CT:SI