- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2798 OF 2025 (DEC) BETWEEN: M/S SAMMY'S DREAM LAND CO. PVT. LTD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.9 2ND FLOOR, BELAIR DRIVE MEKHRI CIRCLE, BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE-560 032 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR N. RAMESH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR M.S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI MUNISWAMAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT NO.76, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE JALA OBLI BENGALURU-560 091. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASHANT L. KANAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) - - - THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1.12.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN OS NO.1153/2025 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL Digitally signed by RUPA V HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI., ALLOWING THE IA NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2025 passed in O.S.No.1153/2025 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (for short 'the Trial Court'). 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.1153/2025 seeking the relief of judgment and decree for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, further relief of declaration that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 defendant has not derived any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 25.04.1966 and consequential prayer of permanent injunction against the defendant. The respondent contested the suit by filing a written statement. The respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking for rejection of the plaint. The appellant objected to the said application. Under the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed. 3. Sri.Shyam Sundar M.S, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application of the respondent for rejection of the plaint without appreciating the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It is submitted that the Trial Court considered the effect of the sale deed dated 25.04.1996 and recorded a finding with regard to caveat emptor, which ought to have been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 done after a full-fledged trial and not at the stage of considering the application for rejection of plaint. It is further submitted that while considering the application for rejection of plaint, the Trial Court is required to consider only the plaint averments. However, the finding in the impugned order is also based on the averments in the written statement which is impermissible. It is also submitted that the aspect of limitation and the cause of action is required to be tested on the strength of evidence adduced by the parties in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. However, the Trial Court has jumped to the conclusion on the aspect of limitation and cause of action and rejected the plaint, which is impermissible. It is contended that the Trial Court erred in recording the finding on the title of the appellant solely based on the plaint averments and the arguments of the other side, which is impermissible. It is further contended that the appellant has no knowledge with regard to the sale deed dated 25.04.1966 and the encumbrance - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 certificate does not reflect the said entry. The appellant is a bona fide purchaser and has purchased the property after due diligence and all these aspects are required to be gone into by the Trial Court by recording the evidence. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the respondent acquired the property by way of a registered sale deed dated 25.04.1966. It is submitted that once the property is registered, there is a presumption that the public at large has knowledge with regard to the acquisition of the property. It is further submitted that the respondent purchased the property from Smt.Doddavenkatamma way back in the year 1966 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and all the revenue records stand in his name. The appellant claims to have acquired the property in 1998 and 1999 that too based on the General Power of Attorney (GPA). It is also submitted that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 the execution of the alleged GPA and the alleged sale deeds based on such GPA have no sanctity in the eye of law as the vendor of the appellant did not have any title to the property. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. DILBOO (SMT) (DEAD) BY LRs AND OTHERS Vs. DHANRAJ (SMT) (DEAD) AND OTHERS1 2. SMT.UMA DEVI AND ORS Vs. SRI. ANAND KUMAR AND ORS2 3. DAHIBEN Vs. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) DEAD THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS3 4. RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH Vs. RAM PRASANNA SINGH (DEAD) BY LEGAL RERPRESENTATIVES4 5. M/s DURGA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. Vs. Sri. S.RAJAGOPALA REDDY AND ORS5 6. AMAN SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. UMESH AND OTHERS6 7. IEEE MUMBAI SECTION WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. GLOBAL IEEE INSTITUTE FOR ENGINEERS7 Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 1 (2000) 7 SCC 702 2 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 382 3 (2020) 7 SCC 366 4 (2020) 16 SCC 601 5 ILR 2019 KAR 4739 6 (2022) 8 SCC 798 7 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 658 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 6. The point that arises for our consideration is: "Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for any interference?" 7. The aforesaid point is answered in the negative for the following reasons: a) The appellant filed a suit for declaration that the appellant is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deeds dated 18.11.1998, 18.11.1998 and 07.01.1999, further declaration that the respondent has not derived any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 dated 25.04.1966 and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the respondent restraining him from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The respondent filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the respondents have acquired the suit schedule property vide registered sale deed dated 25.04.1966 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. b) The respondent-defendant filed I.A.No.III under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. The appellant filed objections to the said application and sought for dismissal of the same. The Trial Court, under the impugned order allowed I.A.No.III and proceeded to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is filed beyond the period of limitation and there is no cause of action. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 c) The contention of the appellant is that the finding of the Trial Court on the title of the appellant is impermissible. The records indicate that the respondent's father had purchased the suit schedule property from Smt.Doddavenkatamma vide registered sale deed dated 25.04.1966. The appellant has contended that the purchase of the property by them in the year 1998-99 is without the knowledge of the sale deed dated 25.04.1966. A perusal of the plaint averments make it clear that the appellant claims that they came to know about the sale deed dated 25.04.1966 only when the revenue proceedings were started between the parties and not prior to the same and based on such knowledge, the filing of the suit is within the period of limitation. It is to be noticed that the suit schedule property acquired by the appellant is in the year 1998-99. However, the same property was acquired by the respondent in the year 1966 by a registered sale deed. The registered sale deed creates a presumption that the public at large has - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 knowledge with regard to the transaction and the appellant cannot contend contrary to the same by producing some encumbrance certificate. Admittedly, the encumbrance certificate produced by the appellant along with the memo is obtained and secured recently. We have also noticed that the appellant has cleverly drafted the plaint as well as sought relief that the respondent would not acquire the right, title and interest over the suit schedule property by virtue of the sale deed dated 25.04.1966. We have already recorded the finding that once the property is transferred by way of the registered sale deed, it is deemed that the public at large has knowledge with regard to the transaction. The vague assertion in the plaint of not having knowledge about the sale deed dated 25.04.1966 is an attempt to overcome the limitation and to bring the cause of action within the period of limitation. The Trial Court, under the impugned order clearly recorded the finding based on the plaint averments that principle of Caveat Emptor is applicable to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 the case on hand as the father of the defendant purchased the property from Smt.Doddavenkatamma and she cannot once again execute the GPA dated 01.07.1977 in favour of Sri.N.Ramesh and based on such GPA, the purchase of the property by the appellant is without title as the vendor himself was not having a title on the date of execution of the GPA and the consequential sale deed. The said finding of the Trial Court is based on the plaint averments and in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra. The Trial Court recorded further finding that the cause of action pleaded in the plaint is imaginary and there is no real cause of action to institute the suit. d) Having considered the averments in the plaint, the assertion of the appellant is that he is the bona fide purchaser of the suit schedule property. The appellant has also pleaded that on 03.09.2025 the respondent tried to interfere with the suit schedule property with an intention to dispossess the appellant but with difficulty the appellant - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 resisted the same and again on 05.09.2025, the respondent attempted to dispossess the appellant. The said assertion is a false cause of action created to institute the suit seeking declaration that the respondent has not derived any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 25.04.1966. Such a prayer is admittedly beyond the period of limitation. e) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DILBOO referred supra, at paragraph 20 held as follows: "20……..As the title of the rank trespasser would get perfected by adverse possession on the expiry of 12 years so also the title of such transferee would get perfected after 12 years. The period of 12 years has to run from the date of knowledge by the plaintiff of such transfer. It is always for the party who files the suit to show that the suit is within time. Thus in cases where the suit is filed beyond the period of 12 years, the plaintiff would have to aver and then prove that the suit is within 12 years of his/her knowledge. In the absence of any averment or proof, to show that the suit is within time, it is the plaintiff - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 who would fail. Whenever a document is registered the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge. In other cases where a fact could be discovered by due diligence then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the plaintiff because a party cannot be allowed to extend the period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge." f) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMT.UMA DEVI AND ORS. referred supra held as under: "12. In the case at hand, partition took place way back in the year 1968, which is evident from the revenue record entries. The suit is filed in the year 2023, i.e. after a period of 55 years. Further, many of the family members had executed registered sale deeds in the year 1978. These sale deeds have been attached, and on perusal it is observed that these were in fact registered sale deeds. A registered document provides a complete account of a transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court in 6 the case of Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656 held as under: “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 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 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. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified”. 13. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the partition that 7 took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them being registered documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma, these sale deeds have not been challenged, neither has partition been sought. Thus, the suit (filed in the year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 14. The learned senior counsel for the defendants/appellants, Mr. Sundaram, relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844) to substantiate the contention that the suit was barred by limitation. It was observed as follows: “16. When a portion of the property has been conveyed by court auction and registered in the first instance and when another portion has been conveyed by a registered sale deed in 1952, there is a constructive notice from the date of registration and the presumption under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, comes into operation. The possession, in the present case, also has been rested with the appellant before several decades, which operates as notice of title. 17. XXX 18. Continuing further with the plea of limitation, the Courts below have held that 23 (1977) 4 SCC 467 the question of the suit being barred by limitation can be decided at the time of trial as the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. Though the question of limitation 8 generally is mixed question of law and facts, when upon meaningful reading of the plaint, the court can come to a conclusion that under the given circumstances, after dissecting the vices of clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action, the suit is hopelessly barred and the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11”. 15. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174, this court laid down the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC : “The plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for 9 rejection of the plaint. Even when, the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order V11 Rule 11 of CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage”. 16. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366, it is stated as under – - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 “The underlying object of Order VII 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”. 17. In our considered opinion, the Trial Court had rightly allowed the application of the defendants/appellants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a meaningless litigation, that it did not disclose a proper cause of action and was barred by limitation. There were thus no justifiable reasons for the appellate court to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court. g) Keeping in mind the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is clear that the date of registration of a document serves as a constructive notice to the public and the period of limitation will run from the said date. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that though the question whether a suit is barred by time is a mixture of law and facts, if the plaint averments taken as a whole show that the suit is barred by limitation or that there is - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5690-DB RFA No. 2798 of 2025 no cause of action, then the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC can be entertained and the plaint can be rejected. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court, on appreciation of the plaint averments, was fully justified in recording the finding and rejecting the plaint. We do not find any error or perversity in the said finding recorded by the Trial Court calling for interference in this appeal. 8. The appeal is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly, rejected. Consequently, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4