IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. Srishananda, J.
Ms. Priya Khanna, D/o Romesh C. Khanna - Petitioner
Versus
Tree House Apartment Owners Association - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 867 of 2025 (IO)
Decided On : 09-12-2025
ORDER :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri.Skanda Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.M.D.Raghunath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent.
2. Defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application vide I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.8355/2023 dated 06.11.2025 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short).
3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1. Respondent/plaintiff being the association filed a suit against the defendant with the following prayer:
“Wherefore, the plaintiff most respectfully prays before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree thereby directing the defendant to:
a. To pay a sum of Rs.37,58,233 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Three Rupees Only) along with interest at 24% p.a. up to the date of the suit together with future interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization in full,
b. Direct the defendant to pay the cost of the suit; and
c. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
3.2. Plaintiff contended that plaintiff is the association of apartment owners of the building known as ‘Tree House’.
3.3. It is further contented that after the flats came to be constructed, as per the deed of declaration, every owner of the individual flat must pay an amount towards the quarterly maintenance for the upkeep of the building as is fixed by the managing committee from time to time.
3.4. Further the maintenance paid by every owner may include payment to the general operating fund, reserve fund, sinking fund for periodic renovation, replacement etc.
3.5. According to the plaint averments, there was a demand of outstanding amount to the tune of Rs.37,58,233/- including the interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
3.6. Plaintiff also contended that other owners of the plaintiff’s association filed an arbitration case in Arbitration Case No.113/2026 against the defendant claiming a sum of Rs.39,83,623/- along with the interest at the rate of 18% from 18.06.2010 towards the contribution of her share for construction of apartment building and completion of her apartment unit.
3.7. Plaint averments further reveal that the said amount is paid by the defendant but she failed to clear the arrears of maintenance charges.
3.8. Cause of action paragraph in the plaint is at paragraph No.13 which reads as under.
“It is submitted that the cause of action for the above suit arose prior to 01.04.2015 to 20.10.2023 and on the dates when the defendant has not made quarterly payments towards the arrears of maintenance, on various occasions when the plaintiff made regular follow-up via email, also the date on which the plaintiff got issued the legal notice and all other subsequent dates and every periodical quarter, where the defendant was due to the plaintiff.”
4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement and also denied the plaint averments and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.
5. Plaintiff/association filed the objection to the said application.
6. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the application filed by the defendant inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.9 to 20 as under:
“9. According to defendant, who is admittedly the co- owner of the property, has not executed or registered the Deed of Declaration. According to defendant, as mentioned under section 2 of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 the Act applies only to properties, the sole owner or all the owners of which submit the same to the provisions of the Act by executing and registering a declaration. In view of admitted fact that, the defend
An apartment owners association can claim arrears of maintenance despite one owner not executing the Deed of Declaration, as the claim constitutes a continuing cause of action. Limitations are applic....
The suit regarding alienation of ancestral property is governed by Article 109 of the Limitation Act, allowing for a 12-year period, which was not adhered to, leading to its dismissal.
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.
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....
A suit seeking declaration of tenancy rights without a claim for possession is barred under Section 144(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it indirectly seeks restitution already denied.
The court affirmed that a suit regarding title to property is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, if not filed within three years of the cause of action arising.
The main legal point established is that disputes involving third party rights and allegations of fraud may be deemed non-arbitrable, requiring adjudication in a properly instituted proceeding with t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.