- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3437 CRP No. 402 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 402 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT VASUMATHI KRISHNANDA W/O K D KRISHNANDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS PRESENTLY R/A NO.277/B 37TH A CROSS ROAD JAYANAGAR 8TH BLOCK BENGALURU 560082. AND ALSO AT NO. 4705 LA CRESCENT LOOP SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 35137 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEEPAK BHASKAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAMANATHA IYER K A S/O LATE K K ANANTHARAMA VADIAR AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/A CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3437 CRP No. 402 of 2024 2. SRI K A VARADARAJA IYER K A S/O LATE K K ANANTHARAMA VADIAR AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/A CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 3. SMT K A SANGEETHA UMASHANKAR IYER D/O LATE K K ANANTHARAMA VADIAR AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/A CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 4. K A KRISHNA IYER S/O LATE K K ANANTHARAMA VADIAR AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS NO.2 IIND MAIN SARAKKI JARAGANAHALLI J P NAGAR BENGALURU 78 5. SMT SEETHALAKSHMI W/O KRISHNA IYER K A AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS NO.2 IIND MAIN SARAKKI JARAGANAHALLI J P NAGAR BENGALURU 78. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R5 SERVED & UNRERESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S. NO.4757/2023 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE IA NO.3 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3437 CRP No. 402 of 2024 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendant No.4 in O.S.No.4757/2023 on the file of the learned 5th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH 13), being aggrieved of the rejection of their application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for defendant No.4 submits that the suit is filed by the plaintiffs who claim to be the legal heirs of late Sri K.K.Anantharama Vadiar. The geneological tree is furnished as document No.B1 along with the plaint. Defendant No.3 has purchased the suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3437 CRP No. 402 of 2024 schedule property from defendant No.1 – Sri K.A.Krishna Iyer and the 2nd defendant - Smt.Seethalakshmi under registered sale deed dated 15.11.1991. Learned counsel points out to the plaint and submits that the averments in the plaint is that defendant No.1 is the elder brother of the plaintiffs and he was an employee of the Motor Industries Company Limited, Bengaluru. MICO established the MICO Employees House Building Co-operative Society and the said society formed a layout which is known as MICO layout. The suit schedule property is a site in the said layout formed by the society. However, it is contented that the defendant No.1 did not have the money to purchase the site which was allotted by the society. Therefore, it is contended that the plaintiffs helped defendant No.1 by giving financial assistance and with an understanding that the property will be purchased in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2, but, the property will belong to the plaintiffs as well as defendants Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel submits that it is admitted in the plaint that a sale deed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3437 CRP No. 402 of 2024 was registered in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 by the society on 18.10.1988. The khata was registered in the name of defendants No. 1 and 2, since they are shown to be the purchasers of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, defendant No.3, the husband of defendant No.4 purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 15.11.1991. The learned counsel would therefore submit that on a plain reading of the plaint, it is clear that the suit filed on 26.07.2023 with a prayer to declare the sale deed dated 15.11.1991 as not binding on the share of the plaintiffs is clearly time barred. 4. It is also clear from the averments made in the plaint that the plaintiffs have never claimed that the suit schedule property is a part of ancestral joint family property. It is clearly stated that defendant No.1 was allotted with the site, which was formed by the society and in terms of the allotment, registered sale deed was executed by the society in favour of defendant No.2. That being the position, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3437 CRP No. 402 of 2024 make contradictory statements, while on the one hand stating that the suit schedule property was allotted to defendant No.1 and on the other hand the plaintiffs assisted defendant No.1 financially to pay the sale consideration and the plaintiffs permitted defendant No. 1 and 2 to get the sale deed executed in the name of defendant No.1 and 2. 5. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that the Trial Court has fallen in error in rejecting the application filed by defendant No.4 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. 6. Although notice is served on the respondents/ plaintiffs, there has been no representation for them. 7. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.4, has drawn the attention of this Court to the interim Order dated 26.06.2025 passed by this Court in this Civil Revision Petition. This Court has noticed that in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.8468/2023, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3437 CRP No. 402 of 2024 which arose out of the same suit in the matter of grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, it was observed that the plaintiffs have given a wrong address and therefore, service of notice could not be complete in the said case and therefore, this court proceeded to vacate the order of injunction on that score. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner/ defendant No.4 and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel has rightly placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi and Others Vs. Anand Kumar and Others, (2025) 5 SCC 198, where it was held that in the said case the partition between the family members had taken place in the year 1968, which is evident from the revenue record entries, however, the suit was filed in the year 2023 i.e., after a lapse of 55 years from the date of the said partition which took place in the year 1968. While - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3437 CRP No. 402 of 2024 observing the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. (2) Vs. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656, where it was held that the registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. The Apex Court noticed the settled principles of law that it can be safely assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice to the registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the partition that took place way back in the year 1968, by virtue of them being registered documents. Further, the Apex Court also noticed a more - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3437 CRP No. 402 of 2024 recent decision in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali, (2020) 7 SCC 366, where it was held in paragraph number 23.3, as follows: “23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.” 9. Applying the said principles, this Court finds that from a plain reading of the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiffs admit that they are not the registered owners of the property. The suit schedule property was registered in the name of defendants No.1 and 2 vide a sale deed dated 18.10.1988. The plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration that the sale deed dated 15.11.1991 executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3437 CRP No. 402 of 2024 binding on the shares of the plaintiffs. What follows is that pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 15.11.1991, defendants No.3 and 4 are in possession of the suit schedule property and having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court, the plaintiffs cannot deny the fact that the sale deed was registered in favour of defendant No.3 in the year 1991. Therefore, it is quite evident from the averments made in the plaint itself that there is a delay of nearly 32 years in filing the suit seeking such a declaration. Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a period of three years to cancel or set aside an instrument and provides for the time from which the limitation period begins to run, being when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have his instrument cancelled first became known to him. The plaintiffs are aware of the execution of the sale deed by the society in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2, dated 18.10.1988 and the execution of sale deed dated 15.11.1991 by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3. When facts are - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3437 CRP No. 402 of 2024 clear from the averments made in the plaint, question of brushing aside the contentions of defendant No.4 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, would be contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned 5th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-13), Bengaluru, on I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC in O.S.No.4757/2023, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Consequently, the application in I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC, at the hands of defendant No.4 is hereby allowed, while rejecting the plaint. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3437 CRP No. 402 of 2024 Ordered accordingly. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY, DL CT: JL