##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1578 OF 2024 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B.S. NAGENDRA

S/O LATE B. SHESHAGIRI RAO

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

HAVING HIS OFFICE AT:

161/2, 2^ND FLOOR

UNION BANK OF INDIA BUILDING

11^TH CROSS

MALLESHWARAM

BENGALURU-560 003

...APPELLANT

(BY SHRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

SHRI. ANILKUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR

SHRI. DALWAI VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . MR. Y.S. SURESH

S/O SHINGEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

RESIDING AT NARAYANA POULTRY FARM

YELWALA

MYSURU-571 130

2 . MR. Y.S. SATYANARAYANA

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

S/O SHINGEGOWDA

RESIDING AT SATYA POULTRY FARM

##PAGE2##

2

YELWALA, MYSURU-571 130

3 . SMT. T. NALINI

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

W/O MR. Y.S. SATYANARAYANA

RESIDING AT SATYA POULTRY FARM

YELWALA, MYSURU-571 130

4 . M/S. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

8J4V+V8V, JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD

CHAMARAJAPURA, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA

LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU

KARNATAKA-570 005

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

...RESPONDENTS

(By SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. NAGARAJULU NAIDU G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908,

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2024 PASSED ON I.A.No.4 IN

O.S.No.919/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, ALLOWING I.A.No.4 FILED

UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR

REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 17.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN

J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

##PAGE3##

3

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This appeal is preferred against judgment and decree

dated 03.06.2024 passed in O.S.No.919/2023 by the VII

Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Mysuru ('trial Court'

for short), wherein, the trial Court has rejected the plaint.

2. We have heard Shri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned

senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Anilkumar S, learned

advocate appearing for the appellant as well as Shri.

Jayakumar S Patil, learned senior counsel as instructed by

Shri. Nagarajulu Naidu, learned advocate appearing for

caveator/respondents No.1 to 3.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties are

referred to as per the ranking before the trial Court.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant would contend that the plaint has been rejected

relying on the averments in the documents of the

defendants, which is impermissible in law. It is submitted

that the plaintiff is a developer involved in development of

##PAGE4##

4

properties in and around the City of Mysore. M/s. Karnataka

Telecom Department Employees Co-Operative Society

Limited ('Society' for short) had executed an agreement

dated 29.03.2006 in favour of the plaintiff with a mandate to

acquire lands and to develop them into a Township for the

members of the Society. Thereafter, several agreements

dated 10.11.2006, 23.05.2008 and 26.10.2019 were

executed between the Society and the plaintiff. It is

contended that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development

Board (KIADB) proposed acquisition of some of the

properties which were purchased by the plaintiff. Therefore,

the plaintiff identified further properties as evidenced by

document No.5 series. Thereafter, a Development

Agreement was executed on 27.08.2007 by defendants No.1

to 3 in favour of the plaintiff and a General Power of

Attorney was also executed on the same day by defendants

No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff.

5. It is submitted that an amount of ₹10,00,005/-

was paid by the plaintiff by way of Cheque bearing

No.157597 dated 27.08.2007 and another Cheque bearing

##PAGE5##

5

No.157600 dated 27.08.2007 for a sum of ₹10,00,000/- was

also handed over to defendant No.2, who encashed the said

cheques. It is contended that an earlier suit, that is,

O.S.No.446/2011 was filed seeking a declaration that the

General Power

Click Here to Read the rest of this document