- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5137 CRP No. 100002 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100002 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SMT. R. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O. R. SUDARSHAN REDDY, AGE: 49 YEARS, R/O. BUDUGUPPA VILLAGE-583210, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUN SHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF SRI. KESHAV DATAR, ADVOCATE APPEARED THROUGH VC) AND: 1. SR. S. MOHAMMED ASLAM SAB S/O. SARGERU ABDUL NABI SAB, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED OFFICIAL IN HEALTH DEPARTMENT, R/O. COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583102. 2. SMT. B. KAMRUNISSA BEGUM W/O. ABDUL REHAMAN SAB, AGE: 80 YEARS, R/O. 3RD CROSS, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI-583103. 3. SRI. MOHAMMED ISAQ S/O. ABDUL REHAMAN SAB, AGE. 45 YEARS, R/O. 3RD CROSS, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI -583103. Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.22 15:55:08 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5137 CRP No. 100002 of 2024 4. SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB S/O. ABDUL REHAMAN SAB, AGE: 43 YEARS, R/O. 3RD CROSS, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI -583103. 5. SRI. MOHAMMED GHOUSE BASHA S/O. ABDUL REHAMAN SAB, AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O. 3RD CROSS, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI -583103. 6. SRI. Y. VIRUPAKSHI GOWDA S/O. Y. SHARANA BASAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. YELUBENCHI VILLAGE-583115, TQ: & DIST: BALLARI. 7. SRI. B. SRINIVASA RAO S/O. B. RAMA RAO, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. 3RD CROSS, RIGHT SIDE, WARD NO.18, M.V. NAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI -583103. 8. SRI. ADINARAYANA SETTY S/O. P. AYYANNA SETTY, AGE: MAJOR R/O. BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BALLARI -583103. 9. SRI. B.M. NEELAKANTA GOWDA S/O. B. MALLIKARJUNA GOWDA, AGE: MAJOR R/O. SATHYANARAYANA PET, BALLARI -583103. 10. SRI. P. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. NARAYANAPPA CHOWDARY, AGE: MAJOR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5137 CRP No. 100002 of 2024 R/O. ASHOK NAGAR, HAVAMBAVI, SIRUGUPPA ROAD, BALLARI -583104. 11. SRI. P. GURUDASA REDDY S/O. LATE THIMMA REDDY, AGE: MAJOR R/O. KAPPAGAL ROAD, 7TH CROSS, RIGHT SIDE, BALLARI-583103. 12. SRI. K. HONNURAPPA S/O. PAKIRAPPA, AGE: MAJOR R/O. DOOR NO.10, RUPANAGUDI ROAD, WARD NO.16, MILLERPET, BALLARI -583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANJITA G. ALAGWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. GIRISH S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R10 & R11; R2-R9-NOTICE DISPENSED; R12-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.94/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BALLARI AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BALLARI ON I.A. NO.VIII IN O.S.NO.94/2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED IN I.A. NO.VIII AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5137 CRP No. 100002 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by defendant No.12 assailing the order dated 05.12.2023 on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.94/2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Ballari (for short “the Trial Court”) rejecting the application. 2. I have heard Sri. Arun Shyam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Keshav Datar for the petitioner and Miss.Ranjita Alagawadi learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Girish S Hulmani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.10 and 11. 3. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel Sri.Arun Shyam appearing for the petitioner that the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing I.A.No.8 despite the fact that the suit is barred by time so also various sale deeds have been made subsequently, which is reflected in paragraph 11 of the impugned order and accordingly, it is submitted that a clever drafting has been made to get the relief of declaration by the plaintiff, which requires to be interfered with at the earliest so that the defendants cannot be vexed for litigation. Accordingly, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5137 CRP No. 100002 of 2024 he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasantha v. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam1 and contended that the suit itself is not maintainable as the plaintiff is not in a possession of the suit schedule property and has also not sought for recovery of possession and accordingly the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, Miss.Ranjita Alagawadi learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Girish S Hulmani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.10 and 11 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 5. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the plaint averments. The plaintiff has sought for relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and the alleged sale deeds said to have been executed by defendant No.1 to 12 at various dates are not binding on the plaintiff. It is also forthcoming from the plaint averments that the plaintiff was unaware about the sale deeds said to have 1 (2024) 5 SCC 282 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5137 CRP No. 100002 of 2024 been executed inter se between defendant No.1 to 12 and on perusal of the finding recorded by the Trial Court at paragraph 11, it makes clear that defendant No.1 had purchased the suit schedule property as per registered sale deed dated 22.10.1965 and thereafter sold the same in favour of the plaintiff as per the registered document No.4066/1968-99 for valuable consideration. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the averments made in the plaint, as it is stated that the plaintiff was unaware about the subsequent sale deeds made in favour of defendant No.1 to 12 inter se and further as the question relating to limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which requires to be considered only after full-fledged trial in the matter, I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 6. It is also made clear that the observation made by this Court in the present revision petition is confined only with regard to disposal of I.A.No.8 filed before the Trial Court and the Trial Court is requested not to be influenced with the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5137 CRP No. 100002 of 2024 observation made in the present petition, which is only for the purpose of disposal of I.A.No.8 before the Trial Court. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27