- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4021 CRP No. 803 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 803 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. LOKESH T.L., S/O. LATE LAKSHMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.79, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, BASAVASAMATHI LAYOUT, VIDHYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 097. ALSO AT R/A SKANDA NIVASA, NO.2743, E BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. TO ROTTI MANE, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 092. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. R. RAMANJINAPPA, S/O SRI. PUJARI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.215, 4TH B CROSS, MUNESWARA TEMPLE ROAD, JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 064. Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4021 CRP No. 803 of 2024 2. SMT. KANTHAMMA, W/O LATE SRI. R. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.265/1, GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD, JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 064. 3. SMT. PUSHPA, W/O LATE J.N. ANAND, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 4. KUMARI. KIRANA A., D/O LATE J.N. ANAND, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, BENGALURU - 560 077. 5. KUMARI KEERTHANA, D/O LATE J.N. ANAND, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. PUSHPA. RESIDING AT NO.265, 4TH B CROSS, MUNIESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 064. 6. SMT. SHARADA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA @ NAGARAJU, W/O K.B.NARAYANA, R/AT NO.103, 12TH CROSS, 1ST K BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4021 CRP No. 803 of 2024 7. SRI. RAJU @ RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA @ NAGARAJU, RESIDING AT NO.256, GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD, JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 064. 8. SRI. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE R. NAGARAJAPPA @ NAGARAJU, RESIDING AT 179, NEAR KENNY ENGLISH SCHOOL, JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 064. 9. SMT. RADHA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, D/O LATE R.NAGARAJAPPA @ NAGARAJU, W/O PATALAPPA, R/AT BANDEEPA BIDHI, BETTAHALSUR ROAD, TARAHUNSE VILLAGE, BANGALORE - 562 157. 10. SRI. N. DINESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O NAGAPPAIAH, R/AT NO.619/1, GKVK CROSS, BYTARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 092. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNIL P PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R10 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 26.11.2024) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4021 CRP No. 803 of 2024 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7.11.2024 PASSED ON APPLICATION IN OS NO.4401/2024 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner who is defendant No.9 in the suit filed at the hands of respondent No.1 herein, is aggrieved of rejection of his application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The prayer in the suit in O.S.No.4401/2024 is as follows: "WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and Decree against the defendants. “a) Declaring that, the purported Sale Deed dated 18.03.2024, registered as Document No.BYP-1- 02424-2023-24 and stored in C.D.No.BYPD1395 in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4021 CRP No. 803 of 2024 office of Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru executed by defendant Nos.1 to 7 in favour of defendant No.9 and 10 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. b) Grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their representatives agents, agents and any person claiming interest or authority under defendants in any manner from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by the plaintiff. c) Consequently direct the office of this Hon'ble Court, to send the copy of the judgment and decree to the office of the jurisdictional sub-registrar, to make necessary entry or note on the instruments contained in their books and records tat, the Sale Deed dated 18.03.2023 registered as No.BYP-1-02424-2023- 24 and stored in C.D.No.BYPD1395 in the office of Sub- Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru is declared as null and void. d) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case and pass decree with costs in the interest of justice and equity." 3. It is the contention of defendant No.9 that in a prior suit filed in O.S.No.892/2008 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli, a compromise petition was filed between - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4021 CRP No. 803 of 2024 the parties who were the family members that the suit schedule property being one of the items of the schedule in O.S.No.892/2008 was notified was acquired by BDA and if BDA were to de-notify the acquisition then the suit schedule property will fall to the share of Sri.R.Nagarajappa, the father of defendant Nos.5 to 8, herein and that Sri. Ramanjinappa, the plaintiff herein will not claim the right over the said items of the suit schedule property. 4. It is contended that thereafter, the suit schedule property was de-notified and Sri. R. Nagarajappa became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Thereafter defendant Nos.9 and 10 purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 18.03.2023 from the wife, children and grand children of Sri. R.Nagarajappa. It was therefore contended that the plaintiff being party to the compromise petition entered in O.S.No.892/2008, cannot now be permitted to raise a plea with the suit schedule property is a joint family property. 5. During the course of this proceedings, this Court had looked at the compromise petition which has been - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4021 CRP No. 803 of 2024 produced at Annexure-B and found that item No.4 of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.892/2008, which is the subject matter of the present suit which measures 36 guntas in Sy.No.105/10 situated at Jakku, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk was mutually agreed to be shared between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 namely, Sri. Ramanjanappa and Sri. R. Nagarajappa contrary to what is sought to be made out by Defendant No.9. It was also agreed that in the meantime, the plaintiff and defendant No.2 could alienate the said property to a prospective buyer and they agreed to share the consideration amount equally. 6. Contrary to what is sought to be made out by Defendant No.9, no such prayer is made in the suit seeking the set aside of the compromise decree. On the other hand, now it is sought to be submitted at the hands of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant No.9 that the very same plaintiff have also filed on application in O.S.No.892/2008 seeking to recall the compromise decree dated 22.04.2009, re-open the suit and proceed with the original proceedings or to pass such other order as the Court may deem fit. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4021 CRP No. 803 of 2024 7. Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sree Surya Developers and Promoters Vs. N. Sailesh Prasad and Ors. 8. Having heard the learned counsels for the petitioners as well as the contesting respondent No.1 and perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the contention sought to be raised by respondent No.9 in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 are not in any way substantiated by the material already placed on record. The decision in the case of Sree Surya Developers and Promoters Vs. N. Sailesh Prasad and Ors. which is sought to be relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner deals with situation having regard to the provisions contained in Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the CPC that bars a subsequent suit being filed for annulling the compromise decree entered in the previous suit. 9. The Trial Court has rightly considered the contentions raised by the defendant No.9. The Trial Court has culled out the prayer made in the suit and has rightly come to a - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4021 CRP No. 803 of 2024 conclusion that no such prayer has been made in this suit seeking the annulment of the compromise decree in O.S.No.892/2008. The Trial Court has thereafter came to an conclusion that while perusing the plaint averments and documents filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint and the submissions made by both the parties, the cause of action is made out and the question regarding limitation involve mixed question of fact and law and at this juncture the Court cannot discuss nor go in to the other documents produced by defendant No.9. 10. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, civil revision petition stands dismissed. 11. Any observations made by this Court touching upon the merits of the matter shall not prejudice the case of any of the parties before the Trial Court. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE RKA