- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8499-DB RFA No. 100548 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100548 OF 2022 (DEC) BETWEEN: CHANDRABHAGA W/O. LINGAPPA RASHINKAR AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: FABRICATION AND ENGENEERING WORKS, R/O. OPP. CIVIL COURT, BESIDES HOTEL DHARWAD, P.B.ROAD, DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJAT JOGALEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDA. BANGALURU-560001. 2. THE REVENUE SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHAN SOUDA, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE DY. COMMISSIONER D.C.COMPOUND DHARWAD-580001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR DHARWAD TALUKA, DHARWAD-580001. Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.17 11:05:12 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8499-DB RFA No. 100548 of 2022 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, NEAR ICE FACTORY, OPP GYMKHANA CLUB, HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD-580004. 6. HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPN BY ITS COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD-580001. 7. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR B.R.T.S., BESIDES ISKON TEMPLE, RAYAPUR, P.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD-580009. 8. NITIN S/O. LALITKUMAR GIRI AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND LANDLORD, R/O. VINAYAK NAGAR, KUMARWAMY LAYOUT, P.B.ROAD, DHARWAD-580008. 9. SMT. VIBHA W/O. PRMOD JOGLEKAR AGE: 50 YEARS , OCC: SERVICE, R/O. VINAYAK NAGAR, KUMARWAMY LAYOUT, P.B.ROAD, DHARWAD-580008. 10. SMT. MAMATA W/O SUNIL JOGLEKAR AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. VINAYAK NAGAR, KUMARWAMY LAYOUT, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580008. 11. SMT. AJITA W/O. ASHOK SALEM AGE: L76 YEARS, OCC: GOODS OFFICE, R/O. NO.3, TELCO HOUSING SOCIETY, NO. 19 , PLOT NO.D1//2A, SECTOR NIGADI, PUNE-411044, MAHARASHTRA STATE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8499-DB RFA No. 100548 of 2022 12. M/S. J.P. HOTELS AND RESORTS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS, SI JAIRAM S. SHETTY, R/O/ASHWAMEDHA CASTLE, “C”BLOCK, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580020. 13. JAIRAM SHEENAPPA SHETTY AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. ASHWAMEDHS CASTLE “C” BLOCK, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580020. 14. MANJUNATH VENKATESH KAMATH AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. ASHWAMEDHA CASTLE “S/3” BLOCK, KESHPUR, HUBBALLI-580020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7; SRI. PRAKASH K.JAWALKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R12 TO R14; NOTICE TO R8 AND R11 ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R9 AND R10 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.29/2017 DATED 13.01.2022 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DHARWAD AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION IN IA NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (D) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8499-DB RFA No. 100548 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) The plaintiff in O.S. No.29/2017 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’, for short) has filed this appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2022 by which, an application filed by the defendants No.12 and 13 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was entertained and the plaint was rejected. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy understanding, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. The suit in O.S. No.29/2017 was filed for declaration that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants 12 to 14 and to declare the decree passed in O.S. No.807/2011 as fraudulent and did not bind the plaintiff. She also sought for a declaration that the agreement entered into between the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8499-DB RFA No. 100548 of 2022 predecessors of the plaintiff and defendants No.8 to 11 was just and proper and that defendants No.12 to 14 were bound by the same. She further sought for declaration that the defendants No.12 to 14 were not entitled to seek any compensation in respect of the suit properties, which were acquired by the BRTS authorities and to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation regarding the possession of the portion demolished and to declare that the compromise decree arrived in O.S. No.236/2004 as a result of misrepresentation and fraud. Besides these, she sought for declaration that the leasehold right of Smt.Kamalinibai, her son Lalitkumar Giri and his legal heirs were not inherited and hence they did not derive any better title and therefore had no right to execute any sale deed in favour of defendants No.12 to 14 and that the defendants No.12 to 14 did not derive any better title than the lessee. She also sought for a declaration to restrain the defendants No.12 to 14 from interfering with her possession and for a declaration that the plaintiff is in possession and vahivat of the suit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8499-DB RFA No. 100548 of 2022 properties by virtue of an agreement executed by Smt.Kamalinibai. 4. The sum and substance of the averments of the plaint was that the suit properties belonged to one Lalitkumar and his family members. Amongst the suit properties, CTS Nos.78A, 30 and other CTS numbers were owned by the Government which granted leasehold rights in favour of one Raosaheb Gopal Giri of Dharwad on condition of payment of ground rent of Rs.30/- per annum for a period of 50 years commencing from 01.08.1915, with a further condition to renew the lease period from time to time to be fixed by the lawful authority. After the demise of the original grantee, the right was inherited by Smt.Kamalinibai who died on 25.08.1991 leaving behind her son Lalitkumar and defendant No.11. In the year 1996 after the expiry of 50 years of lease period, a representation was made to defendant No.3 for extension. At that juncture the revenue authorities allegedly were won over by the defendants which resulted in registering the name of leaseholder. On the strength of some unsustainable orders in CTS records - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8499-DB RFA No. 100548 of 2022 instead of mentioning the legal heirs of Lalitkumar as lessees it was wrongly mentioned as holders. Therefore, it was contended that the legal heirs of the original lessee never acquired any ownership, right, title or interest. After the death of Smt.Kamalinibai, CTS records stood in the name of Lalitkumar. When things stood thus, defendant No.11- Smt.Ajita filed O.S. No.70/1993 for partition and separate possession which ended in a compromise in the year 2004. Later, Smt.Ajita again filed another suit in O.S. No.136/2004 for declaration and permanent injunction and other reliefs. The plaintiff claimed that in order to legalize the illegal entries effected in the year 1966 and also to defraud the Government of Karnataka, a compromise was reported in the suit in terms of which Lalitkumar and his successors labeled themselves as holders of the properties. The plaintiff claimed that defendants No.1 to 3 were not included in the aforesaid suit as necessary parties. The plaintiff therefore contends that whatever litigations filed and contested were all behind the back of the owner namely the State Government and thus, were a nullity in the eye of law. She contends that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8499-DB RFA No. 100548 of 2022 Smt.Kamalinibai inducted her into actual possession by virtue of an agreement on 23.12.1974 for a period of 99 years commencing 02.12.1973. The name of the plaintiff was thereafter entered in the municipal records. The plaintiff constructed a shed after obtaining necessary permission from the HDMC. Therefore, she contends that from the year 1973 she was in settled possession of the suit properties. 5. She contends that the ancestors of defendants No.8 to 11 by name Smt.Kamalinibai represented to the plaintiff that the leased properties are in her possession and that she had obtained the required permission for non- residential purposes and was permitted to erect the structure for the purpose of conducting fabrication and engineering works in the said properties. During pendency of O.S. No.807/2011 though Lalitkumar was alive, he never denied or disputed the status and capacity of the plaintiff nor her occupation. After the death of Lalitkumar, defendants No.8 to 11 had purportedly conveyed the properties. She contends that defendant No.12 is a partnership firm registered and represented by its partners and without verifying the title of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8499-DB RFA No. 100548 of 2022 their vendor, had purchased CTS Nos.78 and 80. Therefore, it is contended that the defendants. No.12 to 14 cannot take shelter or claim that they are bonafide purchasers. The plaintiff claimed that she was in lawful possession of the suit properties and that she had never attorned or accepted the previous vendors as the landlord. With these and other contentions, the plaintiff sought for the aforesaid reliefs. 6. The defendants No.12 and 13 entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by limitation. In support of the application, an affidavit was sworn by defendant No.13, contending therein that a suit in O.S. No.807/2011 was filed against the plaintiff herein for possession of the properties. The said suit was decreed on 12.08.2015 which was challenged by the plaintiff in R.A. No.113/2015 which was also dismissed on 31.01.2017. The plaintiff thereafter challenged the judgments in RSA.No.100241/2017. He contended that the contentions urged in the suit were already substantially answered in O.S. No.807/2015 and that the plaintiff without - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8499-DB RFA No. 100548 of 2022 disclosing the outcome of O.S. No.807/2011, the filing of R.A. No.113/2015 and RSA.No.100241/2017 had falsefully filed the instant suit. It was also contended that the suit was highly belated and barred by the law of limitation as the plaintiff was a party to the decree in O.S. No.807/2011 and hence, he could not have filed a suit in the year 2017 for a declaration that the decree obtained in O.S. No.807/2011 is fraudulent. 7. The application was opposed by the plaintiff who admitted the proceedings but claimed that O.S. No.807/2011 was decreed on technical grounds. 8. The trial Court after considering the contention urged in the application as well as the objections, perused the decree in O.S. No.807/2011 and held that the plaintiff had lost possession of the suit properties by virtue of the decree in O.S. No.807/2011. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot re-agitate the questions which were already answered. It therefore exercised the power under Section 151 of CPC and held that the plaint is liable to be rejected not only under - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8499-DB RFA No. 100548 of 2022 Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC but also under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff had raised substantial questions of fact and law, which had to be answered after a full fledged trial and the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the plaint on the ground that issues were substantially covered in the earlier suit in O.S.No.807/2011. 10. The learned counsel for the defendants 12 and 13 submitted that the nature of possession of the plaintiff in the suit was considered in O.S.No.807/2011 and the Court authoritatively held that the plaintiff is not entitled to continue in possession and therefore, directed him to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit properties. He also submits that the possession of the properties is already taken over in Execution No.65/2017. Therefore, nothing remains to be considered in this suit. He further submits that RSA No.100241/2017 filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8499-DB RFA No. 100548 of 2022 on 08.12.2017. Thus, he contends that the Trial Court has rightly exercised the power to reject the plaint as it was mischievous in nature and was designed to protract the proceedings and harass the defendants. 11. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 12. A perusal of the impugned order shows that an earlier suit in O.S.No.807/2011 was filed against the plaintiff herein for possession, mesne profits and damages in respect of the properties bearing CTS Nos.78 and 80, which was decreed. The plaintiff challenged the said decree in R.A.No.113/2015 which was dismissed and RSA No.100241/2017 filed there against was also dismissed. Now the plaintiff has tried to revive the litigation by filing the instant suit by contending that the decree obtained in O.S.No.807/2011 is fraudulent and that the plaintiff is not bound by the same. The plaintiff was bound to raise all contentions raised in the present suit in defence in O.S.No.807/2011. Assuring that he has not raised, he cannot - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8499-DB RFA No. 100548 of 2022 do so after the suit is decreed, by filing a separate suit. This is definitely a mischievous litigation and the Court has rightly exercised the power under Section 151 of CPC as well as under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC to reject the plaint. There is no error committed by the Trial Court warranting interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE RH,YAN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13