- 1 - CRP No. 200001 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRP NO. 200001 OF 2025 BETWEEN: KASHIRAM S/O SABANNA AGE: 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O IMDAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: SEDAM, DIST: KALABURGI-585222 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHARANABASAPPA M PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: YAMANAMMA W/O LATE RAMANNA @ RAMAPPA AGE: 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE R/O 2-100, R/O IMDAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: SEDAM, DIST: KALABURGI-585222 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.A.JAGIRDAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED U/S.115 OF THE CPC, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR REVISION PETITIONER PRAYING ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 20.09.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SEDAM IN O.S NO. 9/2024 AND FURTHER ALLOW THE SAID I.A 11/2024 WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., - 2 - CRP No. 200001 of 2025 THIS CRP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CAV ORDERS (PER: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) In this petition filed under section 115 of the code of civil procedure, petitioner who is defendant before the trial Court has challenged the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the trial Court, rejecting the application filed by him under order VII rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC with a prayer to reject the plaint. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. The relief sought by the plaintiff is in respect of land in Sy.No.513, of Adki village, measuring 2 acres. It is the case of the plaintiff that her husband late Ramanna @ Ramappa, and late Narasappa - the grandfather of defendant were close friends. Out of total extent of 12 acres 39 guntas, in Sy.No.513 of Adki village, they purchased land - 3 - CRP No. 200001 of 2025 to the extent measuring 4 acres in the name of Narasappa and 2 acres in the name of Ramanna @ Ramappa. They were respectively enjoying the extent purchased by them, uninterruptedly. Plaintiff is not denying the title of Narasappa to the extent of 4 acres, but also to obtaining nominal sale deed in respect of suit property. The dispute is only in respect of transfer of Khata of suit property in the name of Ramanna @ Ramappa, who died 12 years back. Narasappa went on postponing execution of the document for transfer of mutation with regard to suit property. After his death, defendant agreed to execute the document for the purpose of transfer suit property in the name of plaintiff. However, recently he refused. 4. It is further case of the plaintiff that she filed suit in O.S.No.04/2022. On the objections raised by the defendant regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, a preliminary issue was framed and the trial Court returned the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. Accordingly, plaintiff filed O.S.No.12/2023. However, he withdrew the same with - 4 - CRP No. 200001 of 2025 the liberty to file fresh suit. Accordingly, the present suit is filed. 5. In the written statement, defendant denied the entire case of the plaintiff, except the fact that he is the grandson of Narasappa. He has claimed that Narasappa purchased entire 6 acres in Sy.No.513. Ramappa @ Ramanna was never in position of 2 acres out of the 6 acres, purchased by Narasappa. It is denied that Narasappa promised to execute document for change of Khata of suit property in the name of Ramanna @ Ramappa and went on postponing. It is also denied that after the death of her husband, defendant also promised to execute document in favour of plaintiff to enable her to get the Khata of suit property transferred into her name and recently, she refused to do so, and hence the suit. 6. Defendant filed I.A.No.2 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) with a prayer to reject the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action, and the suit is - 5 - CRP No. 200001 of 2025 barred by limitation. After considering the objections filed by the plaintiff, the trial Court rejected the said application. 7. Challenging the same, defendant has filed this petition contending that the impugned order is erroneous, illegal and contrary to the law. It is liable to be set aside. The reasons assigned for rejecting the application are not sustainable. When the suit itself is not maintainable and ultimately, it is going to end in dismissal, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the same. The rejection of application filed under order VII rule 11(d) would be binding in the entire proceedings. Though the plaintiff withdrew O.S.No.12/2023 with the liberty to file a suit for specific performance, once again, he has filed suit for declaration and injunction and on this ground, also the plaint is liable to be rejected. Viewed from any angle the impugned order is not sustainable and hence the petition. 8. In support of arguments, learned counsel for defendant has relied upon the following decision: - 6 - CRP No. 200001 of 2025 (i) Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors. vs Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and another. (Mukund Bhavan Trust)1 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the petition also. 10. In support of arguments, learned counsel for plaintiff has a relied upon the following decisions: i) Albert D'Souza and ors vs The Divisional Controller and Deputy (Albert D'Souza)2 ii) N.Natesh vs Mani and ors. (N.Natesh)3 11. Heard arguments and produced the record. 12. Thus, it is the specific case of plaintiff that out of 12 acres in Sy.No.513 of Adki village, while the grandfather of defendant by name Narasappa purchased 04 Acres, her husband Ramanna @ Ramappa purchased 2 acres. However, the sale deed is nominally standing in the name of Narasappa. Though during his lifetime, Narasappa agreed to execute necessary document in favour of plaintiff to enable 1 Civil Appeal No.14807/2024 dd 20.12.2024 2 AIR 1975 KANT 82 3 CRP (PD).NO.2662/2021 dd 05.01.2024 - 7 - CRP No. 200001 of 2025 her to get the Khata transferred in her name, he went on postponing and ultimately refused. According to the plaintiff, in fact, after the death of Narasappa, defendant also agreed to execute necessary document, but failed to do so, forcing her to file the suit. 13. At the first instance, plaintiff had filed O.S.No.04/2022 before the Civil Judge and JMFC Sedam. Defendant raised objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction on the ground that market value of suit properties is more than `8 lakhs. The trial Court framed preliminary issue regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction and vide order dated 19.01.2023, held that it is not having pecuniary jurisdiction and returned the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. Accordingly, plaintiff filed O.S.No.12/2023 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sedam. However, by filing application under order XXIII, rule 1 of CPC, plaintiff withdrew the suit with liberty to file fresh suit for specific performance and other reliefs. Thereafter, plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration and other reliefs. - 8 - CRP No. 200001 of 2025 14. Once again, defendant raised objection regarding maintainability of the suit and filed I.A.No.2 under Order VII rule 11(a) and (d) to reject the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action and that the relief sought is barred by limitation. He has also contended that though the plaintiff got the earliest suit withdrawn in order to file a suit for specific performance, instead of seeking the said relief, once again, she is claiming relief of declaration and injunction. 15. As rightly held by the trial Court, though in the application filed under order XXIII rule 1 of CPC, the plaintiff stated that she want to file a suit for specific performance, while, allowing the application, the trial Court has permitted her to file fresh suit for whatever relief she is entitled i.e., without restricting her right to claim any specific relief. Therefore, it is not open to defendant to say that plaintiff should have to filed a suit for specific performance only. 16. So far as contention of the defendant that, there is no cause of action, as held by the trial Court, cause - 9 - CRP No. 200001 of 2025 action is a bundle of rights, which are sought to be enforced by the plaintiff. Only after trial, the Court can come to the conclusion whether plaintiff is having such a right and entitled to claim the same. 17. Similarly, the question of limitation being a question of law and facts, suit cannot be thrown out without providing opportunity to the plaintiff to prove her case by leading evidence. 18. The trial Court has passed a detailed order, giving reasons and this Court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the same in exercise of powers under Section 115 of CPC. In the result petition fails and accordingly the following: ORDER i) Petition filed by the defendant under Section 115 of CPC is hereby rejected. ii) The impugned order on I.A.No.2 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC dated 20.09.2024 in O.S.No.09/2024 on the file - 10 - CRP No. 200001 of 2025 of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sedam, is hereby confirmed. iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR