- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 585 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI. A. PRASAD ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO. 389, 1ST FLOOR, 13TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 080. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. N. BHARATH REDDY S/O N. SURYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RAT NO. 550, 16TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, CMH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 038. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGA HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST ORDER DATED 18.08.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN OS NO.5036/2022 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC., OR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.M.Aswathanarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Naga Harish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Aravind V. Chavan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant in O.S.No.5036/2022 is the revision petitioner challenging the rejection of I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short). 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.5036/2022 in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 2 acres 16 guntas in respect of following properties and following prayer: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023 PRAYER “(a) Pass a judgment and decree of specific performance directing the defendant to execute a sale deed in respect of 2 acres 14 guntas over A, B & C Schedule Properties and handover possession of the same failing which the court may direct the execution of the sale deed through court and direct possession to be taken pursuant to agreement to sale between plaintiff and defendant. (b) Pass a judgment and decree to refund a sum of Rs.57,63,975/-together with interest at 16% from 19.12.2007 to the date of filing of the suit of a sum of Rs. 1,38,33,540/- for failure to transfer title in respect of 1 acre 08 guntas in the D schedule property. (c) To pass a judgment and decree to grant interest at 16% in respect of Rs 57,63,975/-from filing of this suit till actual payment. (d) To pass such other suitable orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023 'A' SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that part and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.60 now sub-numbered as Sy.No.60/1, situated at Shettyhalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring to an extent of 1 acre 02 guntas which is bounded on the East by: Land belonging to Sri. G. Narayana West by: Land belonging to Smt. Kondamma North by: Government Road South by: Land belonging to Sri. Rajendra 'B' SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that part and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.60 now sub-numbered as Sy.No.60/1, situated at Shettyhalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring to an extent of 9 guntas which is bounded on the East by: Land bearing Sy. No.20 West by: Land belonging to Smt. Kondamma North by: Land belonging to Sri. Bandappa South by: Land belonging to Smt. Kondamma 'C' SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that part and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.60. now sub-numbered as Sy No.60/1, situated at Shettyhalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli. Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring to an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas which is bounded on the East by: Bandappa's land & Land Sy.No.20 West by: Arasappa's land (now sub-numbered as Sy.No.58/6) North by: Government Road South by: Land bearing Sy.Nos.18 & 29. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023 'D' SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that part and parcel of the property bearing Sy. No.60 now sub-numbered as Sy.No.60/1, situated at Shettyhalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring to an extent of 1 acre 08 guntas which is bounded on the East by: Sy.No.60/1 A Prasad land West by: Sy.No.58/6 Bharath Reddy land North by: 62 Feet Road Government Road South by: Sy.Nos. 19 3.2. An agreement to sell in respect of the suit property was entered by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 19.12.2007. The consideration amount was fixed at Rs.1,85,60,000/-. 3.3. It is contented that the documents were perfected with regard to the title by the defendant but plaintiff failed to get the sale deed executed. However, plaintiff was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and there was a refusal by the defendant on several grounds and therefore suit came to be filed. 3.4. Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the suit agreement and also took the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023 ground that the agreement itself is void in view of the fact that the purchaser was a minor at the time of the suit agreement. 3.5. An application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC came to be filed seeking rejection of the plaint. 3.6. Plaintiff opposed the same by filing detailed written objections. 4. Learned Trial Judge considering the rival contentions of the parties dismissed the application by order dated 18.08.2023. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court in this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that Trial Court failed to note that suit came to be filed after 15 years of the execution of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023 sale agreement and therefore, there was no cause of action to file the suit and suit was barred by limitation. 7. He would further contend that purchaser being the minor at the time of agreement, agreement is unenforceable and therefore, plaint needs to be rejected. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 9. He would contend that there was no notice issued by the defendant about the perfection of the title to the suit property. Likewise, whenever the fact of the purchaser being a minor is disputed and even assuming that the purchaser is a minor, if the contract is beneficial to the minor, such a contract is not void-ab-initio but it is voidable at the instance of the minor. 10. Therefore, the grounds urged in the revision petition are not sufficient to annul the well reasoned order of the Trial Court and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there was no notice issued by the defendant about the perfection of the title. 13. Therefore, the period of limitation that is sought to be canvassed as a defence can only be adjudged after the full-fledged trial. Therefore, on that ground, plaint cannot be rejected. 14. Coming to the second ground namely the purchaser was a minor as on the date of the agreement is a mixed question of law and fact inasmuch as the defendant is contending that the purchaser is a minor whereas the plaintiff is contending that he was a major. 15. Assuming that as on the date of agreement, if the purchaser is a minor, if the contract is beneficial to him, he may ratify such a contract. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47860 CRP No. 585 of 2023 16. Anyway, these are the matters which are also required to be adjudged by the Trial Court after recording the evidence in accordance with law. 17. Therefore, dismissal of the application seeking rejection of the plaint is just and proper which requires no interference by this Court in this revision. 18. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and all the contentions available to the parties can be urged in the suit in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50