Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA
Chinnamaregowda S/o. Late Puttappa – Appellant
Versus
Venkatesha S/o. Late Dasegowda – Respondent
ORDER :
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri Gopala Gowda and Sri R.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.
2. Defendants in OS No.58/2022 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
A suit came to be filed in OS No. 58/2022 with the following prayer in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’):
“Wherefore, the plaintiff humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree for the relief to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property in pursuance of Registered Sale Deed dated. 24/11/1971 stands in the name of his father Dasegowda, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 to 6 agents or anybody acting on behalf from interfering with grant the schedule property in manner whatsoever and such other Court cost and relief 's in the interest of justice.
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of alienated land bearing Sy.No.145/8, measuring 0.08 guntas of Hommaragalli Vilalge
Issues of limitation and sale deed validity require full trial; defenses are not assessed at the preliminary dismissal stage under CPC.
The court emphasized that questions of limitation and cause of action are mixed issues of law and fact best resolved at trial, not at the application stage.
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....
The main legal point established is that while exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must ensure that the plaint discloses a cause of action and the suit is not barred by any law. A....
A perusal of the observations made indicates that the Court while laying down the above proposition has used the word ‘ordinarily’ and has not laid down that even in a case where the issue of limitat....
The court held that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating a full trial for resolution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to sue first accrues when the fact first comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff, and if a suit is filed beyond the limitation perio....
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.
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
