Karnataka High Court
Mr Nagarajaradhya vs Mr Manjunathaswamy on 24 June, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.898 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR NAGARAJARADHYA
S/O. LATE MR BASAVARADHAYA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/A 16, DAMEO PLACE, SHORT HILLS
NEW JERSEY - 07078
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
2. MR NIRANJANARADHYA
S/O. LATE MR BASAVARADHAYA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.4, PALACE CROSS ROAD
CHAKRAVARTHY LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560020.
3. MRS VANITHA
D/O LATE MR BASAVARADHYA
W/O MR. SATISH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/A 2215, COMSTOCK LANE,
NAPERVILLE ILLINOIS -60564
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REP BY HER GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER
NIRANJANARADHYA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA & SRI. C.K.NANDA KUMAR.,
SR. COUNSELS FOR SRI. ABHINAG S., ADVOCATE)
-2-
AND
1. MR MANJUNATHASWAMY
S/O. LATE K V RUDRAADYHA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/A NO.60 MUNIRAMAPPA GARDEN
OPP. KEB LAYOUT SANJAYNAGAR
BENGALURU-560094
2. SUSHMA
DAUGHTER OF LATE NAGAMANI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
3. MAHESH CHANDRA
SON OF LATE NAGAMANI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 ARE
R/A 11 CROSS SADASHIVNAGAR
BENGALURU-560096.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHNAKAR., SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. J.C.KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1
V/O/D. 19.12.2024, NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS D/W)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC AGAINST ST
THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN
OS.NO.1076/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, C/C IIND
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI,
DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE
11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
26.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS, THIS DAY, AT DHARWAD BENCH THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners,
who were defendants No.1 to 3 in O.S.No.1076/2023, on
the file of the learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Devanahalli, being aggrieved of the rejection of
their interlocutory application in I.A.No.2 filed under Order
VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration
that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property;
to set aside the registered release deed dated 28.09.2007,
on the ground that, late Sri.Basavaradhya, the plaintiff's
brother-in-law, taking undue advantage of the innocence
of the plaintiff and his family and with mala fide intention
to grab the suit schedule property from the plaintiff's
-4-
family, coerced the plaintiff and his family members to
execute the release deed.
4. After entering appearance, the defendants filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC for
rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does
not disclose cause of action and is barred by law. The
Trial Court found that during the lifetime of the plaintiff's
father, he purchased the suit schedule property in the
name of his wife Smt.Shivamma (mother of the plaintiff),
in the year 1978. The plaintiff's mother died on
18.06.2006, leaving behind the plaintiff and other legal
heirs. It was contended by the plaintiff that his brother-
in-law was dominating the affairs of the family and he
managed the family affairs. It is contended that taking
advantage of the clout that his brother-in-law wielded on
the family members, he forced the plaintiff, his father and
sister to appear before the Sub-Registrar and directed
them to execute the release deed, to enable him to run
the business under the name and style as "Vinayaka
Industrial Agency". The plaintiff and family members were
told that his brother-in-law required funds to be raised for
-5-
improvement of the business and therefore, documents
have to be pledged with a Bank. It is contended that the
defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit
schedule property. However, when the plaintiff and his
father demanded re-conveyance of the property in their
favour, the defendants refused to do so. The Trial Court is
therefore of the opinion that since the suit is one for
declaration and permanent injunction, it cannot be said
that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The
Trial Court is of the opinion that having regard to the
allegations of fraud and coercion being pleaded, a full
fledged trial would be necessary to consider whether the
contentions raised by the plaintiff could be acceptable and
since the question of limitation is a mixed question of law
and fact, unless parties lead evidence, the question cannot
be decided.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Udaya Holla,
appearing for the defendants submitted that there cannot
be any doubt that while considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court is required to look into
the averments made in the plaint alone. The learned
-6-
Senior Counsel would therefore draw the attention of this
Court to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of
C.S.Ramaswamy Vs. V.K.Senthil and Others, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1330, where it was held that the
averments and allegations in the plaint with respect to
fraud are not supported by any further averments and
allegations how the fraud has been committed/played.
Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is
not enough and the allegations of fraud must be
specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by
using the word 'fraud' the plaintiff would try to get the suit
within limitation, which otherwise may be barred by
limitation.
6. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the
plaintiff has contended in the plaint that the suit schedule
property was purchased by his father, in the name of his
mother and after the death of the mother, the plaintiff
along with his sister and father have succeeded to the suit
schedule property. However, a declaration is sought by
the plaintiff that he alone is the absolute owner of the suit
schedule property. Further, it is contended that the
-7-
reason why the plaintiff's father and sister have not joined
the plaintiff in the suit is that they are aware of the
execution of the release deed and the rights being
transferred under the release deed. Learned Senior
Counsel would further submit that the plea of fraud and
coercion on the part of the plaintiff's brother-in-law and
that the plaintiff is innocent and overpowered by his
brother-in-law is a baseless statement, only to overcome
the law of limitation. It was contended that along with the
release deed, other documents were executed conveying
other properties in favour of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff
has deliberately concealed the said factum. When the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff took
exception to the statements made by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the defendants, this Court called
upon the defendants to place on record such documents.
Accordingly, along with memo dated 21.03.2025 the
defendants tendered copies of Gift Deed dated 30.04.2010
executed by Sri.K.V.Rudraradhya (brother-in-law of the
plaintiff) transferring two pieces of property measuring 2
acres 29 guntas and 12 guntas respectively in favour of
-8-
the plaintiff. The plaintiff has got the revenue entries
changed in his name. Subsequently, the said lands were
acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Board and the plaintiff received compensation of
Rs.3,34,37,500/-. Similarly, in a partition deed dated
16.11.2016, the plaintiff acquired 1 acre 26 guntas in
Sy.No.52/4, and 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy.No.54, situated at
Konnaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District. It is submitted that
Sri.K.V.Rudraradhya was also a party to the said
document. Therefore, it is false to contend by the plaintiff
that fraud and coercion was practiced on the plaintiff.
7. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on
Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)
And Others (2020) 7 SCC 366, where similar
contentions were raised by the plaintiffs that they were
illiterates, not able to read and write and were only able to
put their thumb impression in the sale deed. Such
contention which was accepted by the Trial Court and
confirmed by the High Court were set aside by the Apex
Court while holding that this is a classic case where the
-9-
plaintiffs, by clever drafting, attempted to make out
illusory cause of action and bring the suit within the period
of limitation.
8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.C.K.Nanda Kumar,
also appeared for some of the defendants and supported
the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel
Sri.Udaya Holla.
9. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel
Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, appearing for the plaintiff had earlier
stoutly defended the averments in the plaint and
contended that not even a piece of property was given to
the plaintiff. However, after the documents were filed by
the defendants along with the memo, learned Senior
Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar contended that the plaintiff
was not given a piece of property in the suit schedule
property which belonged to his mother. It was contended
that the documents now sought to be relied upon are not
the property belonging to the plaintiff's mother and the
statement made earlier was justified, since no part of the
property belonging to the mother was allotted to the
plaintiff. It was also contended that the documents now
- 10 -
tendered before this Court cannot be taken into
consideration, since what is required to be considered is
only the averments made in the plaint.
10. In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn to
the decision in Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited
Vs Ashok Vidyarthi and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1612, where it was held that the documents referred to
by the defendants in support of their plea for rejection of
plaint, cannot be considered at this stage as these are not
part of the record with the Court filed along with the
plaint.
11. Heard Sri.Udaya Holla and Sri.C.K.Nanda Kumar,
Senior Counsels for the defendants-petitioners and
Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel for plaintiff-
respondent No.1 and perused the petition papers.
12. During the course of the proceedings, it was
brought to the notice of this Court that Sri.Basavaradhya
died on 18.09.2017. The suit is filed on 04.10.2023.
Although it is contended in paragraph No.6 of the plaint
that Sri.Basavaradhya, forced the plaintiff and his family
members to come to the Sub-Registrar's office and forced
- 11 -
them to affix their signatures on some documents stating
that to run the business, a loan was required and the
documents had to be executed in favour of the Bank to
obtain loan, nevertheless, in paragraph No.7 it is stated
that Sri.Basavaradhya, during his lifetime tried to
dispossess the plaintiff and his family members from the
suit schedule property. It is also stated that
Sri.Basavaradhya told the plaintiff that he, his father and
sister have no right, title and interest in the suit schedule
property, as the same belongs to Basavaradhya and his
family members. It is also stated that the plaintiff's sister,
Smt.Umadevi, who was married to Sri.Basavaradhya
assured that they would return the property back to the
plaintiff's family. It is stated in para No.9 that the
defendants got the khatha transferred in their name
following the death of their parents. It is also contended
that the plaintiff and his father requested the defendants
to re-convey the property but the defendants refused. It
is therefore clear that the plaintiff was aware of the fact
that Sri.Basavaradhya, during his lifetime had contended
that the property belongs to him. The plaintiff has also
- 12 -
admitted that he sought for re-conveyance of property and
the same was refused.
13. Even if Section 17 of the Limitation Act, is
pressed into service, and if the suit is based upon fraud of
the defendants, and the period of limitation does not begin
to run until plaintiff discovered the fraud, with reasonable
diligence, it cannot be denied by the plaintiff that he
became aware of the "fraud" during the lifetime of
Sri.Basavaradhya. Admittedly, Sri.Basavaradhya died on
18.09.2017. Therefore, by applying Article 56 of the
Limitation Act (to declare a forgery of an instrument)
registered or Article 59 (to cancel or set aside an
instrument), 3 years being the period of limitation, the suit
is beyond the period of limitation. To arrive at this
conclusion, no evidence is required and the averments
made in the plaint, is sufficient.
14. In almost identical circumstances, in the case of
C.S.Ramaswamy (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court found
that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for cancellation of sale
deeds executed in the year 2005, after lapse of 10 years.
It was contended by the plaintiffs that by fraudulent
- 13 -
misrepresentation, the defendants got the sale deeds
executed. The Apex Court held in paragraph No.31 as
follows:
"31. Even the averments and allegations in the
plaint with respect to fraud are not supported by
any further averments and allegations how the
fraud has been committed/played. Mere stating
in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not
enough and the allegations of fraud must be
specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise
merely by using the word "fraud", the plaintiffs
would try to get the suits within the limitation,
which otherwise may be barred by limitation.
Therefore, even if the submission on behalf of
the respondents - original plaintiffs that only the
averments and allegations in the plaints are
required to be considered at the time of deciding
the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is
accepted, in that case also by such vague
allegations with respect to the date of
knowledge, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to
challenge the documents after a period of 10
years. By such a clever drafting and using the
word "fraud", the plaintiffs have tried to bring
the suits within the period of limitation invoking
Section 17 of the limitation Act. The plaintiffs
cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the
period of limitation by clever drafting, which
- 14 -
otherwise is barred by limitation. At this stage, a
recent decision of this Court in the case
of Raghwendra Sharan Singh (supra) is required
to be referred to. In the said decision, this Court
had occasion to consider all earlier decisions on
exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC,
which are considered by this Court in
paragraphs 6.4 to 6.9 as under:--
"6.4. In T.Arivandandam [T.Arivandandam V. T.
V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467], while
considering the very same provision i.e. Order 7
Rule 11 CPC and the decree of the trial court in
considering such application, this Court in para 5
has observed and held as under : (SCC p. 470)
"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in
condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of
the process of the court repeatedly and
unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement
of the facts found in the judgment of the High
Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now
pending before the First Munsif's Court,
Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of
the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif
must remember that if on a meaningful -- not
formal -- reading of the plaint it is manifestly
vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, he should
exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
taking care to see that the ground mentioned
- 15 -
therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has
created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in
the bud at the first hearing by examining the
party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. An
activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law
suits."
.....
…..
6.7. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable [Sopan Sukhdeo
Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137] in
paras 11 and 12, this Court has observed as
under : (SCC p. 146)
“11. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was
held that the basic question to be decided
while dealing with an application filed under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real
cause of action has been set out in the plaint
or something purely illusory has been stated
with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code.
12. The trial court must remember that if on a
meaningful and not formal reading of the
plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless
in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to
sue, it should exercise the power under Order
7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that
– 16 –
the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If
clever drafting has created the illusion of a
cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud
at the first hearing by examining the party
searchingly under Order 10 of the Code.
(See T. Arivandandam v.
T. V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467].)”
6.8. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra
Murthy [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra
Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174], this
Court has observed and held as under : (SCC
pp. 178-79, para 7)“7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7
Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said
provision are fulfilled. It is needless to
observe that the power under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC can be exercised by the court at any
stage of the suit. The relevant facts which
need to be looked into for deciding the
application are the averments of the plaint
only. If on an entire and meaningful reading
of the plaint, it is found that the suit is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the
sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the
court should exercise power under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on
the court to terminate civil action at the
threshold is drastic, the conditions
enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to
– 17 –
the exercise of power of rejection of plaint
have to be strictly adhered to. The averments
of the plaint have to be read as a whole to
find out whether the averments disclose a
cause of action or whether the suit is barred
by any law. It is needless to observe that the
question as to whether the suit is barred by
any law, would always depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. The
averments in the written statement as well as
the contentions of the defendant are wholly
immaterial while considering the prayer of
the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even
when the allegations made in the plaint are
taken to be correct as a whole on their face
value, if they show that the suit is barred by
any law, or do not disclose cause of action,
the application for rejection of plaint can be
entertained and the power under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever
drafting of the plaint has created the illusion
of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the
bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will
end at the earlier stage.”
6.9. In Ram Singh [Ram Singh v. Gram
Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364], this
Court has observed and held that when the suit
is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be
allowed to circumvent that provision by means
of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of
– 18 –
those circumstances, by which the suit is barred
by law of limitation.”
15. It was concluded that by applying the law laid
down in earlier decisions, on exercise of power under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and the averments in the plaint,
the Apex Court is of the opinion that both the courts below
have materially erred in not rejecting the plaint in exercise
of power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.
16. In the present case, the release deed was
executed by the plaintiff on 28.09.2007 and the suit is
filed in the year 2023, after lapse of more than 16 years.
The plaintiff has not claimed that he is illiterate or that he
does not know to read and write English. Therefore, where
the plaintiff has admitted execution and registration of the
release deed, the time for seeking cancellation starts
immediately after the registration of the document. The
plaint is therefore required to be rejected on the ground of
the suit being barred by limitation.
17. Recently, this court had an occasion to consider a
contention in CRP 318/2024, decided on 20.06.2025, that
in N.Thajudeen Vs. Tamil Nadu Khadi And Village
– 19 –
Industries Board, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3037, the
Apex Court had held, that where a prayer is made by the
plaintiff seeking declaration and possession, the period of
limitation would be 12 years. This court held that since
the plaintiff has sought for recovery of possession and
therefore, Article 65 of the Limitation Act would apply, but
it is to be noticed that the first cause of action arose when
the three sale deeds were executed and registered.
Therefore, even if 12 years is to be taken as the period of
limitation, the suit should have been filed in the present
context, in the year 2019, latest. However, the suit is filed
in the year 2023, long after the period of limitation. In
Khatri Hotels Private Limited And Another Vs. Vs.
Union of India and Another, (2011) 9 SCC 126, it
was held that the use of the word ‘first’ between the words
‘sue’ and ‘accrued’ as found in Articles 58 and 59 of the
Limitation Act, would mean that if a suit is based on
multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin
to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues.
That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it
would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit
– 20 –
will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of
limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first
accrued.
18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed
on I.A.No.2, in O.S.No.1076/2023 on the file of learned III
Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli, is hereby
quashed and set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.2, filed by
defendants No.1 to 3 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d)
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is
hereby allowed and the plaint stands rejected.
19. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
JT/DL
CT: JL