Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA
H M Narayana Gowda S/o Late Muniveerappa – Appellant
Versus
Ameena BI W/o Late Sheik Budensab @ Babasab – Respondent
ORDER :
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar V, for Sri Narayana Swamy P.M., learned counsel for the revision petitioners. None appears for the respondents.
2. Defendant Nos.6, 7 and 9 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure passed in O.S No.37/2012 dated 22.01.2024 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
A suit in O.S No.37/2012 came to be filed by the plaintiffs against 32 defendants with the following prayer in respect of following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’):
PRAYER
Wherefore, the plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree against the defendants:
a) Declaring that the alleged sale deed dated 25-10- 1990 executed by Defendants 1 and 2 and the father of the Defendants 3 and 4 and their mother Ghouse Bi in favour of the 5th Defendant is illegal and not binding on the Plaintiffs legitimate ½ share.
b) The Sale deeds executed by Defendants 6 in favour of Defendants No.9,10,15,16,21,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 a
The dismissal of a suit application under Order VII Rule 11 requires clear legal grounds for limitation, which were not established by the defendants.
A suit for declaration and partition cannot be dismissed at the threshold if it discloses a cause of action; limitations must be determined through trial.
Limitations on property claims based on prior registered deeds involve mixed questions of law and fact, warranting detailed examination rather than dismissal.
Issues of limitation and sale deed validity require full trial; defenses are not assessed at the preliminary dismissal stage under CPC.
The court ruled that a plaint cannot be dismissed for lack of a cause of action if it provides sufficient information for adjudication, leaving the question of limitation to be determined during tria....
The rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to be decided based on the averments in the plaint.
The court reaffirmed that a plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 based solely on the defendant's contentions; it must be based on the plaintiff's allegations and the merits of the case ....
The court held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot justify rejection of a plaint at the threshold without trial.
A suit challenging a sale deed must be filed within the limitation period; failure to do so results in the suit being barred.
The court determined that applications under Order VII Rule 11 must allow parties to present evidence at trial, as disputed factual matters cannot be resolved at this stage.
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
