- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1433 CRP No. 464 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 464 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. PAVANA WILLIAMS W/O LATE BONAFACE WILLIAMS AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS 2. ROSHAN WILLIAMS S/O LATE BONAFACE WILLIAMS AGED 51 YEARS BOTH PETITIONERS ARE R/AT PLOT 145, FERNS MANOR SURADENUPRA, ARADESHANAHALLI PO DODDABALLAPUR ROAD BENGALURU 562110 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: RASHMI FRANCINA ABRAHAM D/O LATE BONAFACE WILLIAMS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT 133272, LYNDHURST DR FRISCO TX 75035 UNITED STATE OF AMERICA REPRSENTED BY HER DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1433 CRP No. 464 of 2024 MRS PREETHI FREDRICK W/O NAVEEN DAVID, ZAKKAMR #67, TROPICAL PARADISE OFF HALASUR ROAD, KUDLU BANGALORE-68. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. I.S. DEVAIAH., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN OS NO. 881/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.881/2023 and there are aggrieved of the rejection of their application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent/plaintiff is the daughter of petitioner No.1 and sister of petitioner No.2. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1433 CRP No. 464 of 2024 The parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the Trial Court. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the General Power of Attorney dated 18.01.2017 executed by her in favour of the 1st defendant has been obtained by the defendants by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence and is therefore not binding on the plaintiff; for declaration that the release deed dated 31.08.2017 which was subsequently registered before the Sub-registrar, Gandhinagar on the strength of the Power of Attorney said to have been executed by the plaintiff is not binding on the plaintiff; declare that the gift deed dated 31.08.2017, once again registered before the Sub-registrar, Gandhinagar is also not binding on the plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant, being her brother, got the Power of Attorney executed at the hands of the plaintiff by misrepresenting to her that in her absence the mother and brother may require her consent to do certain acts in respect of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1433 CRP No. 464 of 2024 property in question and it was never told to her that she is giving up her rights in respect of the immoveable properties. On the other hand, what is stated in the Power of Attorney is only regarding the bank accounts and no description of the property is shown in the Power of Attorney. 3. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) contending that the plaint should be rejected since there is no cause of action for filing the suit and that is barred by limitation, since admittedly the Power of Attorney was executed on 18.01.2017, the release deed and gift deeds were executed on 31.08.2017 and the suit is filed on 24.05.2023, beyond the period of three years, which is provided for seeking such a declaration in respect of a document. 4. 4. The Trial Court held that it is a well settled principle of law that while considering such an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC only the averments made in the plaint can be looked into and since cause of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1433 CRP No. 464 of 2024 action is a bundle of facts and in order to ascertain the same, the plaint shall be read in whole, and the plaintiff has pleaded fraud misrepresentation, the time starts from the date of the knowledge as contemplated under Section 17 of the Limitation Act. Further, it is held that in the present case on hand, the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks to place reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.S.Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Senthil and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1330, where it was held that the suits were filed after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of registered sale deeds. Following the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that since - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1433 CRP No. 464 of 2024 the plaintiff has admitted the execution of the Power of Attorney and the date of the Power of Attorney is 18.01.2017, the plaint is filed beyond the period of 3 years and therefore, while applying the law of limitation, the plaint had to be rejected. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff submits that the Power of Attorney is not a registered document. The Power of Attorney does not contain description of the suit schedule property and on plain reading of the Power of Attorney, it shows that the plaintiff executed the same in favour of her Brother- defendant No.2, when she was normally residing in United States America to take care of the Bank Accounts, for payment of taxes to the concerned authority and for such other purposes. Though at paragraph No.13, it is mentioned that the power is given to the attorney to sign on behalf of the plaintiff and transfer/convey/gift her share in the immovable and movable properties, in favour of her mother, nevertheless, it is an admitted fact that the Power - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1433 CRP No. 464 of 2024 of Attorney is not coupled with the interest. The plaintiff has not received any money from the defendants to give away her share in the immovable property. Nevertheless, it is submitted that the Trial Court has rightly held that these are the matters which are required to be considered after adducing evidence and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. Learned Counsel would further submit that the plaintiff has also initiated proceedings seeking for grant of Letter of Administration in respect of the Will left behind by her father. 7. Having heard the learned Counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the case C.S.Ramaswamy (supra), deals with cases where there are registered documents executed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff therein had executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants. However, in the present case, a General Power of Attorney was admittedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of her - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1433 CRP No. 464 of 2024 brother- defendant No.2 for performing various functions on behalf of the plaintiff. Nothing specific is mentioned regarding the immovable property which forms the suit schedule property and any specific reason as to why the plaintiff is giving up her rights in favour of her mother. It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff has raised a ground of fraud and misrepresentation as against the defendants. For the same reason, since the plaintiff had not executed the Released Deed and Gift Deed, she is permitted to contend that she was not aware of the registration of those documents. She came to know about such documents subsequently and therefore, cause of auction would arise from the date of knowledge to the plaintiff, which is permissible to be contended even in terms of Section 17 of the Limitation Act. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order. The Trial Court has rightly came to conclusion that the averments - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1433 CRP No. 464 of 2024 made in the plaint are sufficient to hold that there is cause of action for institution of the suit and the question of limitation, being mixed a question of law and fact, the matter can only be decided on merits after considering the evidence that could be brought on record by both the parties. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. 9. Any observation during the course of this order shall not prejudice the case of either of the parties before the Trial Court. 10. All contentions are left open. 11. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY, DL CT: JL