- 1 - RFA NO.100398 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF MAY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100398 OF 2024 BETWEEN: DULESAB S/O. HUSENSAAB PATTEMAHMAD AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. (REPRESENTED BY PA HOLDER NAMELY SAYED S/O. DULESAB PATTEMAHMAD) AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313). …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PAVAN B.DODDATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SONUBAI W/O. MARUTI PUNDE AGE:70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 2. SMT. SUMITRA W/O. MUTTAPPA ASANGI AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 3. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. VITTAL KALLOLI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. - 2 - RFA NO.100398 of 2024 4. SRI. SATISH S/O. MARUTI PUNDE AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 5. SRI. PRAKASH S/O. MARUTI PUNDE AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 6. SRI. SANTOSH S/O. MARUTI PUNDE AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 7. SRI. RAKESH S/O. MARUTI PUNDE AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KAVITA S.JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R7) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECRION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL PASSED IN O.S.NO.294/2023 DATED 24.06.2024 REJECTING THE PLAINT OF THE APPELLANTS AND RESTORE THE SUIT WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT, BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - RFA NO.100398 of 2024 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is by the plaintiff through GPA holder assailing the order of the Court of first instance, who has rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for brevity). The said order is under challenge. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has instituted a suit seeking declaration that he may be declared as absolute owner of the suit schedule property and consequently, grant injunction and in the alternative, the relief of possession is sought to direct the defendants to handover the physical possession of the suit schedule property. 4. The plaintiff at Para-6 of the plaint, referred to the sale transaction dated 15.02.1989. However, plaintiff in the same Paragraph, disputed the execution of the sale - 4 - RFA NO.100398 of 2024 deed in favour of Maruti Punde, who is the ancestor of defendants. Hence, the said suit is filed seeking declaration. 5. On receipt of summons, defendants tendered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC and sought for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action and suit is barred under law. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff. Learned Judge while confining the enquiry to the pleadings averred in the plaint, has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Saranpal Kaur Anand vs Praduman Singh Chandhok and others1. Citing the above judgment, learned Judge was of the view that plaintiff has filed the suit after lapse of more than 34 years and therefore, held that the pleadings in the plaint are not clear and on perusal of the same, does not disclose any cause of action and falls short of mandate provided under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC. One more crucial factor i.e., noticed by the Court 1 2022 8 SCC 401 - 5 - RFA NO.100398 of 2024 of first instance that plaintiff has not chosen to challenge the sale deed. Consequently, application is allowed and plaint is rejected. 6. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the plaintiff and defendants. We have given our anxious consideration to the grounds urged in the appeal memo. The records were secured by this Court. We have carefully examined the pleadings in the plaint. 7. The following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint on the ground that plaint does not disclose cause of action and that suit is barred by law ? FINDING ON POINT NO.(i): 8. Before we examine the order under challenge, we have given our anxious consideration to the pleadings in the plaint. Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 are relevant and same are extracted, which reads as under: - 6 - RFA NO.100398 of 2024 “06. Even though plaintiff is the exclusive owner and possessor of the suit property, these defendants or their pre-deceased Maruti Punde are not having any sort of right title or interest in the suit property, had created false and bogus document like sale deed in the name of deceased Punde, to the effect that this plaintiff when his issues were minors disposed of suit property to Maruti Punde on 15/02/1989. In fact the plaintiff not executed any document in favour of Maruti Punde in none of the occasion, his signature forged by impersonation. Plaintiff not sold out suit property to said Maruti Punde. On the bases of false, bogus and fraudulent document by playing fraud and undue influence, created false sale deed, said Punde got effected his name to the RTC of the suit property, by playing fraud against this plaintiff and also by taking ignorance of plaintiff. The fact as alleged with regards to creation of false and bogus sale deed is done by said Punde so as to engulf the valuable suit property, by taking undue advantage of weaknesses of the plaintiff, as plaintiff was mentally weak and addicted to bad vices like drinking alcohol etc. 07. On the bases of entry of name of Maruti Punde in the RTC of the suit property, he managed to convert suit property in to Non-agricultural plots, so as to sell them to gain illegal money from the suit property. Therefore he started canvassing in the locality and meanwhile he died as stated above leaving behind him the defendants as his legal heirs. These defendants by getting mutated their names to RTC of the suit property have also started to negotiate suit property to third party very recently. Then said illegal act of defendants came to the knowledge of plaintiff, so he gathered documents pertaining to suit property at this stage his old age, and came to know the illegal act of defendants and deceased Maruti Punde behind the back and without the knowledge of this plaintiff. Then the plaintiff gathered the elderly persons of the locality and enquired defendants with regards to their illegal acts committed against him and requested to get it cancelled, the document dated 15/02/1989(alleged sale deed). But the defendants who are adamant in nature not ready to heed the - 7 - RFA NO.100398 of 2024 request of plaintiff. Therefore plaintiff filed this suit for declaration, injection, alternatively possession.” 9. We also deem it fit to extract the prayer sought in the plaint, the same is extracted, which reads as under: 11. PRAYER: This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to decree the suit as under:- (A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to decree the suit of the Plaintiff by declaring that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A annexed to the plaint. (B) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from obstructing or disturbing to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. (C) Hon'ble be court be pleased to direct defendants to hand over physical possession of the suit property alternatively in case if this Hon'ble court comes to the conclusion that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. (D) This Hon'ble Court be award cost of the suit to Plaintiff from the Defendants. (E) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to award just and reasonable relief’s as deems fit: 10. On reading para-6 of the plaint, plaintiff has virtually acknowledged that the sale deed is obtained by defendants’ ancestor Maruti Punde on 15.02.1989. The plaintiff alleged that sale deed is a created and fraudulent document, which is obtained when plaintiff’s children were minors. He further pleads that he has never executed any - 8 - RFA NO.100398 of 2024 document in favour of Maruti Punde and this document is a forged document by impersonation. 11. The prayer sought in the plaint also demonstrates that plaintiff has not challenged the sale deed on the ground that it is obtained by fraud. If at all, he is the absolute owner of the sale deed and if he is not aware of any transaction, mere assertion and seeking declaration of title, does not validly constitutes a cause of action. On reading the entire plaint, we are more than satisfied that the present plaint does not disclose the cause of action. 12. Averment at Para-7 of the plaint further diminishes the plaintiff’s assertion that defendants are tracing title based on a concocted and fraudulent document. It is pertinent to note that at paragraph 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has, in unequivocal terms, made reference to the RTC records pertaining to the suit property and has alleged that the husband of Defendant No.1, namely Maruti Punde, managed to get the property converted and formed non-agricultural plots. This - 9 - RFA NO.100398 of 2024 averment, however, only strengthens the case of the defendants and undermines the maintainability of the present suit, which conspicuously fails to question the underlying sale deed in a manner known to law. Having sold the property through a registered sale deed dated 15.02.1989, the plaintiff or their predecessor-in-title cannot now, decades later, seek to reclaim the same property by initiating frivolous litigation disguised in vague and general allegations. If the plaintiff intends to challenge the sale deed on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or impersonation, the law mandates that specific particulars be pleaded, including the precise nature of the alleged fraud, the date on which the plaintiff discovered the alleged illegality, and the circumstances under which such knowledge was acquired. Mere use of legally charged terms like ‘fraud’, ‘misrepresentation’, or ‘impersonation’, without cogent supporting facts, does not confer any right to avoid the rigours of limitation. 13. The suit having been filed in the year 2023, nearly 34 years after the execution of the impugned sale - 10 - RFA NO.100398 of 2024 deed, is patently barred by limitation. In such cases, courts are not only empowered but duty-bound under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to dismiss suits that are ex facie time-barred, regardless of whether limitation has been specifically pleaded as a defence. Courts cannot permit parties who have voluntarily alienated their properties to circumvent settled principles of law and limitation by filing belated and meritless suits with the intent to harass bona fide purchasers. It is a settled legal position that once a vendor parts with possession and title of immovable property through a registered instrument, they cannot, after decades, attempt to undo the transaction under the garb of ambiguous allegations. The learned trial Judge has rightly exercised judicial discretion in dismissing the suit at the threshold, recognising the misuse of the judicial process and upholding the statutory bar under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Such an approach reinforces the sanctity of legal transactions and deters unscrupulous litigants from reviving stale and settled matters. - 11 - RFA NO.100398 of 2024 14. On examining these significant details, we are of the view that price escalation of the immovable property has only compelled the plaintiff to make a feeble attempt in filing this frivolous suit. The conduct of plaintiff is clearly unfair and he has taken a chance by filing the present suit. This unfair conduct is further escalated and reflected in the present appeal where this appeal is filed through GPA holder, who is none other than his son. Without questioning the sale deed in a manner known to law, plaintiff had no cause of action only to seek a relief of declaration that he is the owner. In the preceding Para-5 of the plaint, plaintiff has narrated how he acquired the property under registered sale deed dated 16.06.1981. Therefore, there was no occasion for plaintiff to seek a simple declaration that he is the absolute owner. The relief of declaration in favour of plaintiff can be decided and declared provided plaintiff challenges the sale deed as indicated in Para-6 of the plaint in a manner known to law. Hence, point No.(i) is answered in the ‘negative’. - 12 - RFA NO.100398 of 2024 For the foregoing reasons, appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AM/- Ct:vh