Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA
K Ganesh Babu S/O Late Krishnamurthy Setty – Appellant
Versus
Parijatha Prakash W/O Mr. T.N. Prakash – Respondent
ORDER :
V Srishananda, J.
Heard Sri.Angad kamath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondents.
2. Defendant No.9 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) vide I.A.No.4.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1. A suit in O.S.No.1495/2016 came to be filed by respondent No.1 in respect of following properties and in respect of following relief:
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of the land situated in the survey No.3/3B situated at Ganakallu village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, an extent of about 1 acre 1 guntas and 4 guntas of kharab in total 1 acre 5 guntas out of which 9 guntas of land and the same is bounded on the:
| Direction | Description |
|---|---|
| East | Road |
| West | Land belongs to C.S. Bhat |
| North | Land belongs to V. Suresh Hegde |
| South | Road |
PRAYER
Wherefore, the plaintiff most humbly prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass the judgment and decree that:
1. Declare that the registered sale deed dated 06.05.2016 between the def
A plaintiff's failure to seek explicit title declaration does not render the suit unmaintainable if sufficient evidence of ownership exists, especially when the trial is ongoing.
Point of law: Rejection of plaint - Clever or ingenious drafting cannot mask the Court for consideration of am application seeking rejection of the plaint when the suit is barred by limitation on the....
A plaintiff asserting ownership based on historical rights and alleged partition must be permitted to pursue relief through trial when faced with disputed claims and questions of fact.
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if it is manifestly vexatious, does not disclose a clear right to sue, and is barred by limitation, particularly when the plaintiff does no....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to sue depends on the actual cause of action, and an illusory cause of action created by clever drafting in the plaint can lead to t....
The court held that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action, and the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
(1) Rejection of plaint – When a document referred to in plaint, forms basis of plaint, it should be treated as a part of plaint – Court cannot look into written statement or documents filed by defen....
powers under Section 84-C of the Act will have to be exercised within reasonable time. The question then would arise what would be the reasonable time for exercise of such powers and what would be it....
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
