Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH
B.V.Govinda Rao Dead By His Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmipathi S/O Late Hanumantharayappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P.SANDESH, J.
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. This regular second appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court against the order passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The said application is resisted by learned counsel for the plaintiff by filing statement of objections.
3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings in the plaint and also prayer sought in the plaint in paragraph No.9, comes to the conclusion that Tahsildar initiated the proceedings in L.R.F.No.6/2005-06 and the possession of defendants’ father was shown to the extent of 4 acres 6 guntas and the defendants’ father during his life time had not challenged the said entries until his death on 03.04.2010.
4. It is argued that Hanumantharayappa’s daughter Smt. Padmamma filed O.S.No.613/2009 before Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli for partition and separate possession of Sy.No.39 measuring 4 acres 6 guntas, the measurement mentioned in the plaint. It is further argued that the question of jurisd
Rejection of plaint under CPC without recording evidence is legally unsustainable, especially when the issue involves mixed questions of law and fact.
Disputed issues of ownership and limitation must be resolved through trial; initial rejections based on plaint should consider potential evidence rather than mere allegations.
The court upheld that the limitation period for challenging a sale deed starts upon knowledge of the transaction, confirming the lower courts' rejection of the plaint on limitation grounds.
A suit can be rejected if it is barred by limitation, and the limitation period begins when the right to sue first accrues, emphasizing the need for timely legal action.
A plaint must establish a clear cause of action; limitation issues involving mixed questions of fact and law cannot be decided without trial evidence.
The court ruled that issues of limitation and contractual validity arising from disputed facts cannot be decisively adjudicated at the stage of rejecting a plaint, necessitating a trial based on evid....
(1) Second appeal – Section 100 CPC confers jurisdiction on High Court to entertain a second appeal, only when it is satisfied that case involves a substantial question of law.(2) Framing of issue – ....
The appellate court upheld that plaintiffs' title validly established, and amendments to pleadings for possession did not change the suit's nature, ensuring compliance with statutory limitation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review application cannot re-agitate issues already considered in a previous appeal, and the grounds for exemption from the law of limitatio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
