- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46705 CRP No. 423 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 423 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI MAHANTHADEVARU AGED 77 YEARS S/O LATE NAGALINGADEVARU 2. SRI T.M. NAGESH AGED 47 YEARS S/O SRI MAHANTHADEVARU BOTH ARE R/AT NO.7 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS NEAR VIJAYA VITTALA SCHOOL SRASWATHIPURAM MYSURU - 570 009 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIKAS NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY C.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MRUTHYUNJAYASWAMY T M AGED 50 YEARS S/OS RI MAHANTHADEVARU R/AT 13, 1ST MAIN, 4TH STAGE, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46705 CRP No. 423 of 2022 THONACHIKOPPALU MYSURU - 570 009 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMESH K.S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN OS.NO.721/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE AND CJM., DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Vikas Nagaiah for Sri. Keshava Murthy C.V., learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Vijay Kumar for Sri. Ramesh K.S., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendants in OS No.721/2020 is the revision petitioner challenging the Order passed on I.A. No.2 filed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46705 CRP No. 423 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 05.07.2022. 3. First in brief for disposal of the present petition are as under : 3.1 A suit came to be filed by the respondent in OS No.721/2020, who is none other than the son of first defendant with the following prayer in respect of following properties: PRAYER Wherefore it is respectfully pray that this honorable court may kindly be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for the following. a). To declare the gift deeds 19.07.2018 which bear document No- 03742, Book No-1, MYE-1-03742-2018-19, CD NO- MYED-109, under this gift deed, landed property bearing Sy NO 50/2, measuring 1 acre 24 gunats, Someshwarapura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, Gift Deed dated 17.01.2019 which bear document No.10540, Book No-1, MYE-1-10540-2018-19, CD NO- MYED-120, under this gift deed, landed property bearing Sy NO 216/2, (Old NO 216), measuring 4 acre 12 gunats, situated at Aiyrahalli Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, Gift Deed dated 29.04.2019 which bear document No.966, Book No-1, MYE-1-00966-2019-20, CD NO- MYED-1973, under this gift deed, landed property bearing Sy NO 50/1A, measuring to extent of 1 acre 14 Gunats, situated at Someshwara Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46705 CRP No. 423 of 2022 Taluk as void, in operative under law, and to set aside the same, d). consequently to direct the defendant no.1 to execute necessary deeds of conveyance deed transferring the schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff. c). Consequently to grant a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant or his henchmen or followers from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in any manner. d). And to grant such other consequential relief deem fit to be granted under the circumstances of the case with cost in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE PROPERTIES Item No.1: The Landed Property bearing Sy. No. 216, measuring 4 Acres 12 Guntas situated at Aiyarahalli Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysüru Taluk. Bounded on: East by: Varuna Canal, West by: Govt Voni, North by: landed Property Bearing Sy.No.215 South by: Landed Property bearing Sy.No.217 Item No.2 The Landed Property bearing Sy No. 50/2, measuring 1 Acre 24 Guntas, and the Landed Property bearing Sy. No.50/1A, measuring 1 Acre 14 Guntas, totally measuring 2 acre 38 guntas, both situated at Someshwarapura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. Bounded on: East by : Road, West by : Adda Halla, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46705 CRP No. 423 of 2022 North by : Property Belongs to Shivamma W/o Shivalingappa, South by: Property Belongs to Nanjundaswany, Item No.3 The Landed Property bearing Sy.No.217, measuring 2 Acre 39 Guntas, situated at Aiyarahalli Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. Bounded on: East by : Varuna Canal, West by: Sarkari Voni, North by: Property Bearing Sy No.216, South by: Property Bearing Sy.No.218 3.2 It is contented by the plaintiff that the first defendant is only name lender in respect of the suit property and entire consideration for the purchase of the suit property was paid by the plaintiff and therefore he sought for the relief as referred to supra. 3.3 Defendants having entered appearance through an advocate filed written statement denying the plaint averments also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the contentions of the plaint is per se incorrect and cannot be taken into consideration by Court in view of the Prohibition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46705 CRP No. 423 of 2022 of Benami Transactions Act, 1988 (for short 'said Act' for short). 3.4 It was also contended that when there is a clear bar under the aforesaid Act, entertaining the suit itself is impermissible and sought for rejection of the plaint. Plaintiff objected the said application by filing detailed written statement. 3.5 Learned Trial Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Same is called in question by the defendant in this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that the Trial Court failed to note the interplay of Section 4 of the 'said Act', vis-a-vis the suit plaint averments and the suit relief and wrongly dismissed the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46705 CRP No. 423 of 2022 application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide I.A.No.2 resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 6. Per contra, Sri R. Vijaykumar supports the impugned order by contending that in respect of family members, Section 4 of the 'said Act' would not be applicable. 7. To buttress his stand, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Gangacharan versus C. Narayanan reported in AIR 2000 SC 589. 8. He invited the attention of this Court to the paragraph No.4 of the said decision which reads as under: "4. It is now well settled that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction except when the decree is void ab initio or without jurisdiction. In the present case, the High Court on 27th August, 1987, as is evident from the passage quoted hereinabove, had given a categorical finding to the effect - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46705 CRP No. 423 of 2022 that the respondent herein was only a trustee and the case was governed by Section 82 of the Indian Trusts Act. Section 4 which contains the prohibition to recover the property held benami expressly provides in sub-section (3), clause (b) that the said Section is not to apply, inter alia, in a case where the property is held in the name of a trustee. In view of the finding of the High Court in its judgment of 27th August, 1987 that the property was being held in the name of the respondent as a trustee, the question of the respondent invoking the provisions of the Benami Transactions Ordinance or the Act did not arise. The provisions of the Act did not prohibit a suit being filed against a trustee for the recovery of the trust property." 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that plaintiff being the son of the first defendant, entitled to maintain the suit and prove the plaint obligations by establishing through the plaint averments by placing necessary material evidence on record. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46705 CRP No. 423 of 2022 11. Thus, prohibition under Section 4 of the 'said Act' is not applicable when there is a fiduciary relationship or within the family members. 12. In the case on hand, the learned Trial Judge took into consideration the relevant aspects of the matter and rightly dismissed the application. 13. Whether at all, the defence taken by the defendant is just and proper, whether at all, plaintiff has contributed for the purchase of property or not cannot be decided at the threshold while entertaining the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. 14. Matter requires full-fledged trial and therefore, rejection of the application is just and proper. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46705 CRP No. 423 of 2022 15. In view of the foregoing reasons, following Order: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24