IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2637/2025 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. D.U. MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS Digitally signed S/O SHRI D.S. UMAPATHY by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM RESIDING AT NO.286, 38TH CROSS Location: HIG H

8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR COURT OF BENGALURU-560050.

KARNATAKA …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. ADV., FOR SMT. SONU S, ADV.,)

AND:

1. SMT. VINUTHA C.R.

W/O UDAY K.M.

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4/204 VISHAL PALACE, 1ST CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003. 2. SHRI. UDAY K.M.

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O SRI. MADAIAH RESIDING AT NO.4/204 VISHAL PALACE

1ST CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADV., FOR SRI/SMT. SHERVIL ADAPPA, ADV., FOR C/RESPONDENT)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.1225/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGALORE. HEARD THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 01.04.2025, PASSED IN O.S.1225/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BANGALORE RURAL AND DECREE THE SUIT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

27.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2025 passed in O.S.No.1225/2022 by the Court of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short 'the Trial Court').

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1225/2022 seeking declaration that the gift deed dated 12.12.2016 is a fraudulent document, declaration that any transaction in regard to the suit schedule property is not binding on the plaintiffs and other reliefs. In the said suit, the defendant No.2 filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint was filed beyond the period of limitation. The Trial Court, on consideration of the plaint averments, submissions and the provisions of law, proceeded to allow the application and rejected the plaint on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

4. Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application filed by the defendant No.2, without appreciating the material on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the gift deed dated 12.12.2016 was executed by fraudulent means by the defendants. It is further submitted that the signature of the plaintiff on the gift deed dated 12.12.2016 was obtained through deception, while simultaneously obtaining signatures on a cancellation agreement. It is also submitted that the Trial Court has erroneously considered the period of limitation to begin from 12.12.2016 i.e. the date of the execution of the gift deed, whereas the limitation ought to begin from the date the plaintiff was aware of the said gift deed i.e on 05.05.2022. It is contended that the plaintiff is a stranger to the family of the defendants, which creates suspicion with regard to the gift deed dated 12.12.2016 and the same is required to be looked into by the Trial Court during the trial. It is further contended that the issue with regard to the limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and requires evidence. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

5. Per co