- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36920 RFA No. 409 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 409 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. N.M. THEERTHE GOWDA S/O LATE MATADAIAH N. K., AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.570, 141B, 6TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. G. PARTHASARATHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. V. KEMPANNA S/O K. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT GONAMAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, ANDERSONPET POST, ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR - 563 1010. 2. SRI. K.V. RAVINDRANATH S/O K. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT GONAMAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, ANDERSONPET POST, ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR - 563 1010. 3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE K. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT NO.141B, 6TH MAIN, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36920 RFA No. 409 of 2024 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. 4. SRI. V. MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE K. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.1155, 11TH MAIN, HAMPINAGARA, R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040. 5. SRI. V. NAGESH S/O LATE K. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.372, 3RD MAIN, IST STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043. 6. SMT. V. PADMA W/O SRI. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.661, 7TH CROSS, BANDEPPA ROAD, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 022. 7. SMT. V. UMADEVI W/O SRI. C.H. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.372, 3RD MAIN, IST STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043. 8. SMT. V SUMITHRA W/O SRI. THEERTHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.141B, 6TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36920 RFA No. 409 of 2024 9. SMT. V. SHARADA W/O Y.R. ASHWAPATHI NARAYANASWAMI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, NANJUDESHWARA NILAYA, IST CROSS, IST MAIN, MUNESHWARA NAGARA, NEAR STADIUM, KOLAR - 563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. N. ANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 4) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 1/24 IN OS NO.7709/2023 ON THE FILE OF XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING IA NO. 1/24 FILED U/O VII RUEL 11(a), (b) AND (d) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present regular first appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 30.01.2024 passed on IA No.1 of 2024 in O.S. No.7709/2023 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court" for short). By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed I.A. No.1 of 2024 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36920 RFA No. 409 of 2024 filed by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 under Order VII Rule 11(a) (b) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, and consequently, the plaint came to be rejected. Brief facts: 2. The plaintiff instituted suit seeking declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and for consequential relief of injunction based on a registered sale deed dated 02.12.1998, executed by defendant Nos.3, 5 to 9, pursuant to an agreement of sale of 1989. The suit property originally belonged to one Smt. Muni Nanjamma, which was her self-acquired property, and on her demise, devolved upon her son K. Venkatesh and thereafter his legal heirs. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had earlier filed O.S. No.29/1991 for partition and separate possession, which was dismissed on 08.03.1999, aggrieved by which, defendant Nos.1 and 2 preferred RFA No.378/1999, which came to be allowed and a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 27.02.2004 and FDP - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36920 RFA No. 409 of 2024 No.5/2016 is still pending. The plaintiff, is the son-in-law of defendant No.3 and husband of defendant No.8 having purchased the property during the pendency of the suit, filed Review Petition No.277/2023 against the judgment in RFA No.378/1999. The review petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellant, being a purchaser, pendent lite and not a party to the original proceedings, was not entitled to maintain the review. However, this Court reserved liberty to the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings to protect his right, title and interest, if any, in accordance with law. The plaintiff also filed an application seeking to implead himself in FDP No.5/2016. The SLP preferred against the order passed in RFA No.378/1999 by the plaintiff has also come to be dismissed as withdrawn and hence, RFA No.378/1999 awarding share to defendant Nos.1 and 2 has attained finality. The contention of the plaintiff is that defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 have already executed release deeds, and defendant No.3 in her evidence in O.S. No.29/1991 has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36920 RFA No. 409 of 2024 admitted the sale in his favour. Since he was not a party to the partition suit, and in view of the liberty being granted in Review Petition No.227/2023, the present suit is filed for declaration and injunction. 3. The Trial Court by the impugned order rejected the plaint on the ground of limitation referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Salim D. Agboatwala and others Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and others1 (Salim D). The Trial Court observed that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property on 02.12.1998, during the pendency of O.S. No.29/1991, hence he is a pendente lite purchaser. The plaintiff, being the son-in-law of defendant No.3 and husband of defendant No.8, is not a stranger but a family member who was aware about the partition proceedings. Partition suit in O.S. No.29/1991 was decreed in RFA No.378/1999 and has attained finality. The plaintiff has already impleaded himself in FDP No.5/2016, the plaintiff did not 1 2021 SCC Online SC 735 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36920 RFA No. 409 of 2024 disclose any independent right to sue, and the pleadings were illusory and vexatious and allowed I.A. No.1 of 2024 and rejected the plaint. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 02.12.1998, executed by defendant No.3, 5 to 9, pursuant to an earlier agreement of sale of 1989, and has since been in possession as the absolute owner. It is contended that defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 have already executed release deeds dated 19.03.1979 and 08.09.1982 relinquishing their rights, and therefore, they had no subsisting interest in the property. Learned counsel argued that defendant No.3, the kartha of the family, in her evidence in earlier suit O.S. No.29/1991, admitted the sale transaction in favour of the plaintiff. It is further argued - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36920 RFA No. 409 of 2024 that the plaintiff was not impleaded as a party in O.S. No.29/1991 or in RFA No.378/1999 despite being a lawful purchaser, hence the decree passed therein is not binding upon him. It is contended that in Review Petition No.227/2023, liberty was granted to initiate independent proceedings. The present suit was filed in pursuance of such liberty and therefore, the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the plaintiff is only a pendente lite purchaser, the sale having been effected during the pendency of O.S. No.29/1991, and his rights are therefore governed by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The plaintiff is not a stranger but the son-in-law of defendant No.3 and the husband of defendant No.8 and had full knowledge of all earlier litigations. The liberty granted in Review Petition No.227/2023 does not create any fresh substantive right. nor extend limitation. It was only an enabling observation, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36920 RFA No. 409 of 2024 permitting the plaintiff to work out remedies in accordance with law, but not to unsettle the decree already passed. It is submitted that the plaint discloses ’no independent cause of action’, is vexatious and frivolous and rightly rejected by the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 (a) (b) and (d). 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants any interference by this Court?” 8. The plaintiff claimed absolute ownership and possession of the suit property on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 02.12.1998, said to be executed in his favour, by some of the legal heirs of late K. Venkatesh (defendant Nos.3, 5 to 9). Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had already filed O.S. No.29/1991 for partition and separate possession of the suit property. That suit was dismissed on 08.03.1999, but in RFA No.378/1999 it was partly allowed and a preliminary decree was passed in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36920 RFA No. 409 of 2024 favour of the parties. The FDP No.5/2016 is still pending. The plaintiff was impleaded in the FDP proceedings, as he had purchased the property during the pendency of the partition suit. He is the son-in-law of defendant No.3- Lakshmama and husband of defendant No.8-Sumithra, and is therefore not a stranger to the family litigation. The appellant-plaintiff also sought review of the judgment in RFA No.378/1999 by filing Review Petition No.227/2023. The said review petition was dismissed as not maintainable, since the appellant was a purchaser pendente lite and not a party to the original proceedings. However, the Court reserved liberty to the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings to protect his rights, title and interests, if any, in accordance with law. 9. It is settled law that such liberty does not create any new substantive right or extend the period of limitation. It only permits the appellant to work out his remedy within the existing legal framework. It is equally well settled that a plaint which, on face of it, discloses a - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36920 RFA No. 409 of 2024 bad or an illusory cause of action, or is based on a transaction hit by limitation of statutory restrictions, is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The settled law is that the Courts must “nip” frivolous or vexatious litigations at the threshold and cannot allow cleverly drafted pleadings to create an illusion of cause of action. 10. The Apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and another2 (T. Arivandandam), has held that if the plaint, on a meaningful reading, does not disclose a clear right to sue and is manifestly vexatious or illusionary, it should be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr. LRs & Ors3 (Dahiben), reiterated that when the plaint itself shows a transaction is barred by law or limitation, and the 2 (1977) 4 SCC 467 3 (2020) 7 SCC 366 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36920 RFA No. 409 of 2024 plaintiff's case is frivolous, the Court should not permit the suit to succeed. Applying the settled principle of law, the plaint in the present case did not disclose a triable cause of action. The plaintiff is a pendente lite purchaser, bound by the decree in RFA No.378/1999, and his claim of absolute ownership is contrary to law. 11. In view of the above, the Trial Court rightly rejected the plaint. The liberty granted in the review petition does not create a substantive right or extend limitation. The suit being manifestly vexatious and without a cause of action, the appeal is devoid of merit and the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The regular first appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The order dated 30.01.2024 passed on I.A. No.1 of 2024 in O.S. No.7709/2023 on the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36920 RFA No. 409 of 2024 file of the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru rejecting the plaint is hereby confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT:PH