Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 29308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 729 OF 2023 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BABULAL GUPTA S/O LATE RAMKUMAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO 576, KALYANAMANTAPA ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.
2. SMT NAMRATHA GUPTA D/O BABULAL GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO 576, KALYANAMANTAPA ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.
AND ALSO R/AT ENCORE PRIMITUS NO. 202, 317/1, 8TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-95 …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by B K (BY SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HI GH COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SRI. MUNIRAJ S/O LATE R A CHATTIYAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO 88, SRI LAKSHMI NILAYAM, 3RD A CROSS, NEAR DON BOSCO CHURCH, KANAKADAS LAYOUT, LINGARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU 560 084, AND REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SRI G NAGARJUN, S/O GOVINDARAJ, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO 52/1, ROBERTSON ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU 560005.
2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU 560020.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M UNNIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2023 PASSED ON IA NO. 4 IN OS. NO.3595/2022 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.9.2023 PASSED BY LEARNED XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE ON IA NO. 4 IN O.S.NO.3595/2022, ALLOW THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Trial Court, wherein the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was rejected. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
2. The defendants, Nos. 1 and 2, entered their appearance and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. The defendants contended that the plaintiff had categorically admitted that the suit schedule property had been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "BDA"), which clearly indicates that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. As a result, the initiation of the present proceedings is not maintainable. After hearing the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court passed the impugned order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the plaintiff, in the plaint, explicitly admitted that the suit schedule property had been acquired by the BDA and subsequently allotted to defendant No. 1 via a registered sale deed dated 29.08.1986. Furthermore, the learned counsel pointed out that defendant No. 1 had later executed a gift deed on 20.02.2002 in favor of defendant No. 2. Therefore, the plaintiff, not being in possession of the suit schedule property, had no cause of action to file the suit. Based on this, the petitioners sought rejection of the plaint.
4. It is noted that although the plaintiff was served with notice, the plaintiff neither appeared in person nor through counsel and was accordingly placed ex parte.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.
6. In paragraph 10 of the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 18.11.2020. However, in paragraph 9 of the plaint, it is clearly stated that defendant No. 1 acquired the suit schedule property through an allotment made by the BDA via a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 29.08.1986. Subsequently, a registered sale deed was executed in favor of defendant No. 1 on 17.01.2002. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 conveyed the suit schedule property to defendant No. 2 through a registered gift deed dated 20.02.2002. The plaintiff has not acquired the subject property, nor has the plaintiff challenged the sale deed executed in favor of defendant No. 1 by the BDA. Additionally, the subject property in question is a vacant site, and as per settled principles of law, possession follows title.
7. Therefore, the averments in the plaint clearly establish that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are in possession of the suit schedule property, having acquired title to the same through the allotment made by the BDA. The plaintiff has not challenged the sale deed executed in favor of Defendant No.1, and the subsequent gift deed in favor of Defendant No.2, so as to overcome the limitation . In the absence of a valid cause of action, the plaint is liable to be rejected in accordance with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC. The cause of action shown in the plaint is illusory and appears to have been concocted solely to circumvent the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
In view of the above, the rejection of the plaint is warranted, as the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a legitimate cause of action to sustain the present suit. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 27.09.2023, passed by the XL Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH- 41) in O.S.No.3595/2022 is hereby set aside, and the application in I.A NO.4 filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 is hereby allowed , and consequ
