IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF MAY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100398 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

DULESAB S/O. HUSENSAAB PATTEMAHMAD AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

(REPRESENTED BY PA HOLDER NAMELY SAYED S/O. DULESAB PATTEMAHMAD)

AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313).

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. PAVAN B.DODDATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. SONUBAI W/O. MARUTI PUNDE AGE:70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

2. SMT. SUMITRA W/O. MUTTAPPA ASANGI AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

3. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. VITTAL KALLOLI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

4. SRI. SATISH S/O. MARUTI PUNDE AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

5. SRI. PRAKASH S/O. MARUTI PUNDE AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

6. SRI. SANTOSH S/O. MARUTI PUNDE AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

7. SRI. RAKESH S/O. MARUTI PUNDE AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KAVITA S.JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R7)

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECRION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL PASSED IN O.S.NO.294/2023 DATED 24.06.2024 REJECTING THE PLAINT OF THE APPELLANTS AND RESTORE THE SUIT WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT, BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

25.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

The captioned appeal is by the plaintiff through GPA holder assailing the order of the Court of first instance, who has rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for brevity). The said order is under challenge.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has instituted a suit seeking declaration that he may be declared as absolute owner of the suit schedule property and consequently, grant injunction and in the alternative, the relief of possession is sought to direct the defendants to handover the physical possession of the suit schedule property.

4. The plaintiff at Para-6 of the plaint, referred to the sale transaction dated 15.02.1989. However, plaintiff in the same Paragraph, disputed the execution of the sale deed in favour of Maruti Punde, who is the ancestor of defendants. Hence, the said suit is filed seeking declaration.

5. On receipt of summons, defendants tendered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC and sought for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action and suit is barred under law. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff. Learned Judge while confining the enquiry to the pleadings averred in the plaint, has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Saranpal Kaur Anand vs Praduman Singh Chandhok and others, [2022 8 SCC 401]. Citing the above judgment, learned Judge was of the view that plaintiff has filed the suit after lapse of more than 34 years and therefore, held that the pleadings in the plaint are not clear and on perusal of the same, does not disclose any cause of action and falls short of mandate provided under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC. One more crucial factor i.e., n