- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI M NAGARAJA REDDY S/O LATE A MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1089 12TH MAIN INDIRANAGAR, HAL 2ND STAGE BANGALORE – 560 038. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.S. DWARAKANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ARCHANA.K.M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S JAIN HEIGHTS AND STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 SOLUS FLOOR 11 NO 2, 1ST A CROSS J.C ROAD, OPPOSITE TO POORNIMA THEATRE BANGALORE – 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - MR KISHOE KUMAR. 2. SRI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY S/O LATE S MUSALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 1-1-719/2 AND 3 NEAR NARMADA HOSPITAL, GANDHINAGAR HYDERABAD – 500 080. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR R S.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. ANJANEYA.A.B, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.01.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.V IN OS No. 328/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, ALLOWING THE IA NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 02.12.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CAV JUDGMENT This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.No.328/2020 is directed against the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed on I.A.No.V by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur, whereby the said application filed by the respondent No.2 – defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed by the Trial Court, which proceeded to reject the plaint and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff against the respondents – defendants. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their respective ranks in the suit before the Trial Court. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the appellant - plaintiff instituted the aforesaid against the respondents – defendant Nos.1 and 2 for declaration that the Sale Deed dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 27.05.2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule property is invalid and void and consequential permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties and for other reliefs. In the said suit, in addition to entering appearing and filing written statement, the defendant No.2 filed the instant application – I.A.No.V under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same did not disclose any cause of action and that it was barred by law and not maintainable and was liable to be rejected. The said application – I.A.No.V having been opposed / contested by the plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I.A.No.V, thereby rejecting the plaint and consequently, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff, who is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 5. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 (i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff and consequently dismissing the suit ? (ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal? Re-Point Nos. 1 and 2: 6. Since both the points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for consideration. 7. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract the plaint averments are as under:- MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE The plaintiff begs to submit to follows: 1. The address of the plaintiff for the purpose of issue of summons, court notices from this Hon’ble Court is as stated in the cause title and the plaintiff is represented by Sri.S.K.Mithun, Sunil, S, Advocates, at No.24, IV Model House Street, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004. 2. The address of the defendants for the above said purposes is as stated in the cause title. 3. The Plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the property more fully described in Schedule A to this suit which consists of Items 1 to 6 and which is herein after referred to as the Schedule A property. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Schedule A property as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 far as defendants are concerned in view of what is stated herein. 4. The plaintiff being the absolute owner in possession of the Schedule A property entered into a Joint Development Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "JDA) dated 17/10/2012 with the first defendant and the plaintiff also gave a General Power of attorney (hereinafter referred to as "GPA") dated 17/10/2012 in favour of the 1 defendant. The copies of the said JDA and GPA are produced herewith. 5. The JDA among other clauses contemplated that the 1 defendant at its cost would develop the layout and in the layout 52% of the developed area shall be retained by the plaintiff and 48% would be transferred to the 1st defendant. 6. As per the terms of the JDA, the approved layout plan is obtained by plaintiff, subsequently in view of the above said clause, a Sharing Agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and 1st defendant dated 23/02/2013 and the copy of the sharing agreement and plan sanction dated 19/10/2012 is produced herewith. 7. It is respectfully submitted that a mere reading of the JDA would show that the Plaintiff is in possession of the Schedule properties. 8. It is also respectfully submitted that a reading of the JDA would show to claim rights over the schedule properties the first defendant should develop the schedule properties and handover the plaintiff developed sital area. 9. The first defendant has not developed the Schedule A Property and as such the consideration has not flown. Hence there is no consideration at all and as such the first - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 defendant is not entitled to sell any portion in Schedule A Property which includes the Schedule B whatsoever to anyone. 10. As the consideration has not flown and time for development of the Schedule A Property as provided in the JDA is over long back the plaintiff issued Legal Notice dated 15/11/2015 and has terminated the Joint Development Agreement Dated 17/10/2012 which is registered as document No MMLR-1-04256-2012-13, Stoned in CD No MLRDB2, in Bock 1. Before the Sub Registrar Malur and has also revoked the General Power of Attorney dater 17/10/2012 registered as document No. MLR-4-00164-2012- 13, Stored in C.D.No. MLRD82, in Bock 4, Before the Sub Registrar Malur. A copy of the Legal Notice dated 15/11/2018 is produced herewith. The plaintiff has also issued a Paper publication informing the general public about the revocation of GPA and termination of the JDA The copy of the Paper publication is produced herewith. 11. The first defendant despite plaintiff terminating JDA and revoking GPA, the first defendant tried to enter upon the schedule property and also tried to execute sale deeds and sale agreements to defraud the plaintiff and to create third party rights. The plaintiff to withstand the illegal activities and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, filed a petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act for interim measures against the first defendant. The said petition was numbered as A.A.No. 420/2018. The notice was served to first defendant and first defendant had appeared and filed its - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 objections to the petition. A copy of the petition filed and objections of the first defendant are produced herewith. 12. The Hon'ble trial court after hearing arguments of both plaintiff and first defendant allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff. The first defendant was restrained from alienating schedule property or its portions and also restrained the first defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the schedule properties. A copy of the Order passed in A.A.No. 420/2018 on 05/02/2019 is produced herewith. 13. It is respectfully submitted that even if for any reason, this Hon’ble Court were to come to a conclusion that the consideration under the JDA has flown and that the Sharing Agreement is valid, a mere look at the Sharing Agreement would show that the schedule B Property has fallen to the share of the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the same and as such, the 1st Defendant could not have executed any sale deed with respect to the Schedule B Property. 14. Things standing thus, on 03/08/2020 tot of persons claiming themselves to be properties had come near the schedule properties and had informed the security guard of the Plaintiff that hey have purchased sites in the suit in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff immediately applied for encumbrance of all sites and found the sale deed executed by 1st Defendant with respect to schedule B property in favour of 2nd Defendant on 27/05/2016 registered as Document No MLR-1-01415-2015-16 in Bock I Stored in CD No. MLRD 110 before the Sub Registrar, Malar Taluk. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 Subsequent to knowing of the same, the Plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the said sale deed dated 27/05/2015 and the same is produced herewith. 15. The first defendant with an intent to cheat the plaintiff and in order to snatch of the valuable property has sold the schedule B property to defendant no. 2 in the sale deed dated 27/05/2015 it is further stated that the Katha of schedule B property stands in the name of plaintiff. The first defendant in order 10 cause loss to plaintiff has made a false statement that the Katha of the schedule B property is in its name. As the first defendant has failed to develop schedule A property and no consideration is passed on to the plaintiff under the JDA, the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of Schedule B Property. The sale Deed dated 27/05/2015 in favour of Defendant No.2 with respect to Schedule B property is void. 16. The Plaintiff is been represented by the first defendant as a power of attorney holder The first defendant has not accounted the plaintiff for the money received under the Sale Deed dated 27/05/2015 from defendant no.2. The said act of the first defendant not accounting the sale consideration amount to plaintiff would be criminal breach of trust 17. It is submitted that as the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule B Property, the existence of the said sale deed dated 27/05/2015 would cause extreme hardship to the plaintiff and consequently the present suit has become necessary. 18. As the sale deed dated 27/05/2015 has been executed by the 1st defendant wrongfully claiming to be the owner with - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 respect to the Schedule B property belonging to the plaintiff, the Sale Deed dated 11/04/2014 should be declared as null and void and the existence of the said sale deed without a declaration as sought for would cause extreme hardship and irreparable loss to the plaintiff and hence this suit. 19. The Defendants have criminally conspired to create false documents and have committed forgery and separate proceedings will be initiated in this regard 20. The Defendant no. 2 without any rights are making attempts to enter the Schedule B Property. On 30/10/2020 the Defendant no. 2 with large number of supporters tried to interfere with the Schedule B property. The Defendant no.2 also threatened the plaintiff that he would enter the Schedule B Property illegally. If the Defendants succeed in their attempts the Plaintiff will not be able to develop the Schedule properties and the Plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. 21. The cause of action arose on 03/09/2020 when plaintiff came to know about be sale deed dated 27/05/2015 and on 30/10/2020 when there was attempt to interfere with the schedule properties by defendants and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court. 22. No other suit has been filed on the same cause of action against the Defendants. This is not the subject matter of the suit in any other suit filed by The Plaintiff against the defendants. There is no pendency of any legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part or the subject matter of this suit/plaint in any court within the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 knowledge of the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. 23. For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the court fee is valued as per Valuation Memo annexed PRAYER WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for the following reliefs against the defendants a. For declaration that the Sale deed executed by 1 defendant dated 27/05/2015 registered as Document No.MLR-1-01415-2015-16 in Book 1 Stored in CD No. MLRD 119 before the Sub Registrar, Malur Taluk, in favour of the 2 defendant with respect to schedule B property is invalid and void and for consequential order of injunction restraining the Defendants 2 and 3 from interfering with the plaintiff possession over the Schedule Properties b. For costs and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 7.1 A perusal of the plaint averments will indicate that it is the specific contention of the plaintiff that he entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) both dated 17.10.2012 in favour of the 1st defendant and since the 1st defendant did not perform his part of the contract and did not develop the schedule properties and no consideration had flown, the 1st defendant was not entitled to sell - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 any portion of Schedule – A property including the ‘B’ schedule property to anyone. It was also contended that accordingly, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 15.11.2018 terminating and revoking the JDA and GPA and issued a paper publication and also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in A.A.No.420/2018 and obtained an interim order dated 05.02.2019 before the trial court. It is further contended that when the plaintiff went near the suit schedule property, on 03.09.2020, he learnt that the 1st defendant had executed a sale deed dated 27.05.2015 in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of schedule ‘B’ property and despite the said sale deed being null and void, 2nd defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the property leading to filing of the present suit. 7.2 As can be seen from the plaint averments supra, it is the specific contention of the plaintiff that the JDA and GPA dated 17.10.2012 were revoked / terminated in 2018 and not earlier, much less when the 1st defendant executed the impugned sale deed dated 27.05.2015 in favour of the 2nd defendant. It follows therefrom that even as per the plaintiff’s own showing as averred in the plaint, the GPA and JDA were subsisting and valid till the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 plaintiff allegedly revoked and terminated the same in the year 2018, thereby leading to the sole / unmistakable conclusion that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to assail the sale deed dated 27.05.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant when the JDA and GPA were still valid and subsisting and were revoked and terminated only subsequently even as per the plaint averments. In this context, it is pertinent note that there are no averments in the plaint, much less, valid and sufficient averments so as to impeach the legality or validity of the sale deed dated 27.05.2015 which is sought to be declared as invalid and void by the plaintiff in the suit which clearly does not disclose any cause of action as can be seen from the plaint averments themselves. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was fully justified in allowing I.A.No.5 filed by the 2nd defendant and thereby rejecting the plaint by passing the impugned order, which cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity in this regard. 7.3 There is no gainsaying the fact that for the purpose of considering rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is only the plaint averments and the documents produced with the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 plaint that are relevant and germane; as stated supra, the plaint averments do not disclose any cause of action for the plaintiff to seek the reliefs sought for in the plaint; so also, along with the plaint, the plaintiff has produced the JDA, GPA, sharing agreement, plan sanction, all of which are undisputedly prior to the sale deed dated 27.05.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant, which is assailed in the suit; a perusal of the said documents will clearly indicate that the same do not support or substantiate the claim of the plaintiff that the said sale deed was null and void; further, the remaining documents comprise of legal notice dated 15.11.2018 which also was subsequent to the impugned sale deed dated 27.05.2015 and consequently, even this legal notice cannot be relied upon by the plaintiff in support of his claim. The remaining documents relate to arbitration proceedings in A.A.No.420/2018 which are also of no avail to the plaintiff to seek a declaration that the earlier impugned sale deed dated 27.05.2015 was null and void; in other words, apart from the fact that the plaint averments do not disclose any cause of action for the suit, even the documents produced by the plaintiff along with the plaint also are not sufficient to establish any cause of action for - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 the plaintiff to institute the suit or claim any right over the suit ‘B’ schedule property and consequently, the trial court was fully justified in rejecting the plaint by passing the impugned order. 7.4 A perusal of the plaint averments, in particular the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff will clearly indicate that the same is barred under Sections 34 and 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, in that appropriate reliefs had not been sought for by the plaintiff, who is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the plaint, especially when the suitable / appropriate reliefs to enforce the JDA, GPA and sharing agreement had not been sought for by the plaintiff. On the other hand, it is an undisputed fact as borne out from the material on record that the plaintiff himself had instituted arbitration proceedings in A.C.No.72/2020 before the Arbitration Centre, which culminated in an arbitral award dated 15.09.2021 in favour of the plaintiff against the 1st defendant. It is therefore clear that having instituted arbitration proceedings by placing reliance upon the arbitration agreement contained in the JDA and having succeeded in obtaining an arbitral award, it was not open for the plaintiff to file the instant suit seeking the present reliefs and the plaintiff was clearly estopped in law and fact from instituting the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 present suit, which was not maintainable and the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC and consequently, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was fully justified in passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal on this ground also. 7.5 A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record and passed the impugned order rejecting the plaint by holding as under:- ORDERS ON I.A NO.V FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.2 UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) of CPC The advocate for the defendant No.2 has filed above I.A. along with supporting affidavit seeking for rejection of plaint as barred by law. 2) In the affidavit the defendant No.2 has deposed that, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of declaration that registered sale deed dated 27.5.2015 executed in favour of defendant No.2 with respect to schedule B property is invalid and void and for consequential order of injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the plaintiff possession over schedule properties. 3) That registration of sale deed is a notice to general public under section 3 of T.P. Act. If the plaintiff wants to challenge the said sale deed, he has to file the suit with in - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 three years from the date of execution of sale deed. As the plaintiff has not filed any such suit with in the period of limitation, the suit is barred by limitation and it is hit by the above said Act. 4) The defendant No.2 has deposed that, in all the documents i.e., registered joint development agreement dated 17.10.2012, it is clearly mentioned that the owner shall not revoke the permission so granted to the developer under any circumstances and incurring expenditure for developing the layout, further agreed in the same agreement that the developer have the right to sell, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise dispose of their 48% share. It is also agreed by the plaintiff that the owner shall not interfere and that he will be liable for action before competent civil and criminal courts if he interferes. In the said agreement it is also agreed that in the event of breach by either party, the other party shall be entitled to specific performance and also be entitled to recovery all losses and expenses incurred as a consequence of such breach from the party committing breach. Thus the plaintiff is only entitled to specific performance against 1st defendant to complete the development work if any pending, but he can not file any suit against the bonafide purchasers. The plaintiff has no legally enforceable right to file the present suit as per sec. 4 of Specific Relief Act and Arbitration and conciliation Act and also this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit under section 2(ii)(vi) and (xi) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 5) Further defendant No.2 has deposed that, the defendant No.2 has made out a prima facie case to reject the plaint as the present court is having no jurisdiction to try the suit and barred by law. If the application is not allowed the defendant No.2 would be put to great hardship and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money, on the contrary, if the application is allowed, there would not be any hardship whatsoever to the plaintiff and much less injury would be caused to him. Hence, the defendant No.2 has prayed to reject the suit. 6) The plaintiff has filed his objections to the above I.A. by denying the whole contentions of above I.A. and affidavit averments. The defendant No.2 has invoked Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act claiming registered sale deed is not a notice to the general public and it doesn't draw an interpretation as contended by the defendant No.2. That registered sale deed is not as a notice to the general public. 7) The plaintiff has further contended that based on the law of limitation the suit cannot be dismissed. Even though the sale deed is entered into by the defendant No.2 in the year 2015 with the defendant No.1, but the plaintiff came to the knowledge of said sale deed only on 03092020. As per Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period is three years, which commences from the date of knowledge i.e., on the date when right to sue first accrues. 8) The plaintiff has further contended that plaintiff has pleaded regarding cause of action having occurred on 03- - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 09-2020 as he has came to the knowledge about sale deed. Hence, contends that suit is not hit by law of limitation. 9) The contention of the defendant stating that JDA and GPA cannot be revoked is not correct. It is denied that by virtue of JDA the defendant No.1 doesn't has any right to sell, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise dispose of their 48% of their share. The plaintiff has not interfered with the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant has sold the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2 as a GPA holder of the plaintiff and khatha was in the name of plaintiff as the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property. 10) The plaintiff has further contended that plaintiff had filed claim petition before the Bangalore Arbitration Centre bearing No.A.C.72/2020 against the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has appeared and filed their objections. The sole Arbitrator after hearing both the parties had allowed claim of the plaintiff and has also upheld that the termination and revocation of the JDA and GPA dated 17102012 as valid and had also directed the defendants to hand over and return all the original title deeds to the plaintiff within three months from the date of arbitration award dated 15092021. In pursuance of arbitration award the JDA has been terminated and the GPA has been revoked. Hence, the sale deed dated 27052015 registered as document No.MLR101415/201516, Book No.I, stored in CD No.MLRD119 is not valid and is void document. The defendant No.2 having invoked Section 4 of Specific Relief Act and Arbitration Act, 1996 contending that the plaintiff is not having any legal enforceable right has been denied. The - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 plaintiff has further contended that the said provision has been invoked to prolong the matter. 11) That the present court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 2(ii), (vi) and (xi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been denied. Further has contended that as per Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.11783/2020, the above suit doesn’t comes under the commercial disputes. Hence, prays to dismiss the above application. 12) Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 13) In view of the above rival pleadings, the following points that would arise for my considerations are: 1. Whether defendant nO.2 has made out sufficient grounds to allow the I.A.No.v? 2. What Order? 14) My findings to the above points are as follows: Point No.1 : In the affirmative, Point No.2 : As per final order For the following; REASONS: 15) POINTS NO.1: The defendant No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act. The plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 have entered into joint development agreement dated 1710 2012 with respect to suit schedule 'A' property. The defendant No.2 is the purchaser of 'B' schedule property, which is the site developed in 48% of the share of the land - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 allotted to defendant No.1 as per joint development agreement dated 17102012. 16) The joint development agreement is dated 17102012. As per clause 1 PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT, of said agreement the plaintiff being the owner of suit schedule land having permitted the defendant No.1 for development of the said land stating that the joint development agreement itself as a letter of authority for the developer to undertake the development work of the schedule property. That owner shall not revoke the permission so granted to the developer under any circumstances, till completion of the entire project as the developer will be marketing his share of the developed layout and incurring expenditure for developing the layout. 17) As per clause 4 SHARING OF DEVELOPED SITED AREA/CONSIDERATION, of said agreement there is a recital regarding the sharing of developed sital area by the plaintiff to the extent of 52% of the total area and the defendant No.1 is entitled for 48% of the developed area as his share. Annexure 5 reveals the 48% of the total area developed by the plaintiff in the suit schedule 'A' properties. In the joint development agreement in the said annexure 5 there are item Nos.1 to 7 in schedule of joint development agreement which includes Sy.No.101/13. In the said survey number 'B' schedule property is the site measuring 45 feet X 70 feet, totally measuring 3150 square feet bearing Site No.112 has been formed, which is shown as 29th site which has fallen to the share of defendant No.1. The said site - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 property has been shown as 'B' schedule property in the present suit. 18) The joint development agreement AT CLAUSE 5 TIME FOR COMPLETION, speaks that time limitation having been agreed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 that defendant No.1 being the developer shall complete the development of the residential layout within 12 months from the date of sanctioned plan from the concerned authority. In the present case the plan has been sanctioned on 19102012, by Malur planning authority, Malur. From the said date within 12 months the defendant No.1 has to develop the residential layout in the suit schedule property as per the joint development agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. 19) The plaintiff has got issued legal notice dated 15112018 stating that after total development of the land, 48% of the area had to be transferred to the defendant No.1 and 52% developed area had to be transferred to the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 had to complete the developmental work as per annexure 5 of the joint development agreement in 'A' schedule of joint development agreement. In pursuance of the JDA, registered GPA dated 17102012 was executed and that even before the development work schedule A property as per JDA, sharing agreement was entered into on 17102012 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. That after completion of development work and formation of sites 48% of developed area had to be transferred to the defendant No.1. The power of attorney executed refers to JDA terms - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 as per it power is given to enter into sale agreement, sale deeds, mortgage deed with respect to only 48% of the developed area subject to the consideration having flown. That the defendant No.1 had failed to comply his obligations under the said JDA, hence the plaintiff contended that consideration has not flown to the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant No.1 is not entitled to exercise powers deriving from power of attorney dated 17-10-2012. In view of nonflow of consideration for the development of the schedule property, as per JDA the plaintiff having terminated the JDA dated 17102012 registered as document No.MLR1 04256/201213, stored in CD No.MLRD82 in Book No.1 before the subregistrar, Malur. Subsequently a notice is also given regarding revocation of GPA dated 17102012 registered as document No.MLR400164/201213, stored in CD No.MLRD82 in Book No.4 before the subregistrar, Malur. That execution of sale deeds by defendant No.1 resulting in third party claim rights, but the transferee does not get any right, title or interest over any sites formed in schedule 'A' property of joint development agreement and suit schedule 'B' property. That sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff. That third parties are not the parties to the JDA Hence, they are not bound by arbitration clause available in the JDA and that the plaintiff would approach the appropriate courts in that regard. Further has issued notice stating that defendant No.1 has no right to enter into the suit schedule property to develop the land as agreed in JDA and to take note of the cancellation of registered JDA and registered GPA. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 20) In the present case as per joint development agreement dated: 17-10-2012 plan has been sanctioned on 19-10-2012. From the said date as per JDA, within 12 months the defendant No.1 had agreed to develop the land and had to form residential sites, but residential sites is stated to have not been developed as per the contention of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff having issued legal notice dated 15-11-2018 terminating the registered JDA and registered GPA. In the present case as per clause 5 of JDA the time for completion reveals that in the event of non availability of material, man power, labour etc., or due to force majure and / or any other reason beyond the control of the developer the period for formation of residential layout can be extended for another 6 months by mutual consent of both the parties, but in the present case there is no such mutual consent agreement has taken place in writing for extending the time period for development of residential sites in schedule 'A' of joint development agreement and suit schedule land, but on the conduct of the parties it is revealed that notice is issued on 15.11.2018 and having waited till 15.11.2018. 21) As per clause 6 of JDA, (6a) transfer of developer's share / power of attorney reveals that the owner having permitted the developer to enter into agreement of sale to sell the sites falling to the share of the developer constituting the developer's share, simultaneously with the execution of the agreement have also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the developer, not withstanding and supportive of the powers already granted, - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 empowering the developer to sell, transfer and convey the developer's share of sites, in favour of prospective purchaser/s nominees of such sites by executing necessary sale deeds, conveyance, etc., as deemed fit and necessary by the developer and for such consideration at the total discretion of the developer 6(a). That the developer by virtue of the power of attorney is also empowered to present all such sale deeds, conveyances whatsoever in respect of the developer's share, to the jurisdictional sub registrar concerned and to complete in all respects such registration of conveyances, “That stamp duty, registration charges and expenses in connection with the preparation and execution of the deeds of conveyance and / or other documents relating to this share in the land comprised in the schedule property agreed to be conveyed to the nominees of the developer shall be borne by the developer alone”. 22) The said clauses does not reveal the condition that after total development entire land in schedule 'A' of JDA and (suit schedule property 'A' land) then only the defendant No.1 is permitted to execute registered sale deeds in favour of third parties with respect to developed sites by the defendant No.1. On the other hand in clause 6(a) speaks that developer is permitted to enter into agreement of sale to sell sites falling to the share of the developer by executing GPA, but it doesn't speaks any contention that after total development of entire suit schedule 'A' land as per JDA, subsequently there should a transfer of share of 48% of the developed land to the defendant No.1. The flow of consideration to be passed by - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff and for transfer of 52% of developed sites to the plaintiff is not revealed. 23) As per clause 24 of JDA the plaintiff has agreed that in the event of any dispute arises with respect to GPA or any other terms of the same or any dispute relating to the extent of powers so extended under the GPA, the said dispute shall be referred to the Arbitrator to be appointed with the mutual consent of the parties and to obtain an award, which can be filed at Bengaluru in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or such other corresponding for the time if not force as on the date of dispute. The arbitration shall be conducted in English language and the place at Bengaluru only. 24) In pursuance of the said JDA clause at 24 the plaintiff has approached the Arbitrator in AC No.72/2020 and has obtained an Award before the Aribitrator. The plaintiff has contended that roads are not formed, water and drainage facilities is not provided to the sites, club house is incomplete, there is no development work having taken place in Sy.No.101/21 and 101/12, STP is not provided and water work is not completed. That developed land would not delivered to the respondent/ defendant No.1 as per the terms and conditions of JDA. 25) That consideration of JDA was that the respondent / defendant No.1 should develop the schedule properties, but the respondent / defendant No.1 has failed to develop the schedule properties, hence the plaintiff being the claimant contends that consideration is not passed to - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 the claimant i.e., plaintiff of the present case. Hence, termination of JDA and the revocation of GPA are valid. That as no consideration was passed to the plaintiff, respondent / defendant No.1 has no right to sell the sites as development has not taken place as per the terms and conditions of JDA. 26) The said petition before the Arbitrator also reveals that as the defendant No.1 having sold sites the case having been filed before the Civil Court under provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, having been registered as AA No.420/2018. That legal notice having been issued on 15-11-2018. Further has pleaded before the sole Arbitrator that the plaintiff having suffered huge loss due to the violation of defendant No.1 in developing the land. If the land developed and sites formed, the plaintiff would have earned Rs.15,74,49,600/ by selling the sites allotted to the plaintiff's share. That claimant / plaintiff having terminated JDA and revoked GPA, the entire schedule property is with the plaintiff, hence claims interest on the said amount as damages at the rate of 10% p.a.. Hence, the claimant / plaintiff has prayed to award the damages. 27) That respondent / defendant No.1 has appeared before the Arbitrator and has filed objections stating that near by villagers threatened and created hurdles and made unreasonable demands. That plaintiff had interfered in the formation of the layout while developing the property by the respondent/defendant No.1. Hence contends there is no breach committed by the defendant No.1 and on the other - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 hand it had developed the properties as per the terms and conditions of JDA. The defendant No.1 has claimed counter claim in the said arbitration case. 28) In the said arbitration award it has been declared that termination of joint development agreement dated 17- 10-2012 registered as document No.MLR104256/201213, in CD No.MLRD82 in Book 1, before the subregistrar, Malur and the revocation of general power of attorney dated 17- 10-2012 registered as document No.MLR400164/201213, stored in CD No.MLRD82 in Book 4 before the sub registrar, Malur as valid. Further the respondent / defendant No.1 is directed to return / handover the original title deeds of the schedule properties and sanction plan, permission, if any, NOCs and any other documents relating to the schedule properties to the claimant / plaintiff, within 3 months from the date of award. Further has passed award for damages as claimant / plaintiff is not entitled for damages as claimed in the petition. However the claimant is not liable to refund the security deposit of Rs.98,18,171 to the respondent / defendant No.1 and counter claim of the respondent / defendant No.1 has been dismissed. 29) The JDA clause 24 reveals that any disputes arises with respect to terms of JDA regarding extention of powers on GPA, the said dispute shall be referred to arbitration to sole arbitrator to be appointed by mutual consent of the parties and to file case in the court of competent jurisdiction at Bengaluru. As per the said clause 24 if any dispute arises regarding JDA terms, as per the mutual consent both parties, the dispute has to be referred - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 to the arbitration the competent jurisdiction at Bengaluru only. The plaintiff in the present case has approached the sole arbitrator at Bengaluru and has obtained relief of termination of JDA and revocation of GPA, in AC No.72/2020 dated 15092021. Now the plaintiff has come before the present court i.e., Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that sale deed executed by 1st defendant to defendant No.2 after formation of site dated 27052015 registered as document No.MLR101415/201516 in Book I, stored in CD No.MLRD119 before the sub registrar, Malur in favour of 2nd defendant i.e., schedule 'B' property as invalid and void and for consequential order of injunction restraining the defendant Nos.2 and 3 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the schedule properties. 30) In the present case the defendant No.2 has filed the above I.A. under order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC seeking for rejection of plaint as barred by law contending that the suit filed for declaration that the sale deed is dated 27052015 registered as document No.MLR101415/201516, Book I, stored in CD No.MLRD119 before the sub registrar, Malur with respect to schedule 'B' property is invalid and void and for consequential order of injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property. That the registered sale deed is a notice to general public. The plaintiff has not filed this suit within three years from the date of execution of sale deed. Hence, the suit is barred by law of limitation. Hence, has prayed to reject the plaint. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 31) That joint development agreement dated 17-10 2012 speaks that owner cannot revoke the permission so granted to the developer under any circumstances and incurring expenditure for development of the layout. That developer has a right to sell, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise dispose of their 48% share and that owner shall not interfere. In the event of breach of either party, the other party shall seek the relief of specific performance of contract and entitled to recover all losses and expenses incurred as a consequence of such breach from the party who commits breach of contract. That plaintiff is only entitled to specific performance against 1st defendant to complete the development work if any pending, but he cannot file any suit against the bonafide purchasers. The plaintiff has no legally enforceable right to file the present suit as per Section 4 of Specific Relief Act and Arbitration and Conciliation Act and also this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 2(ii) (vi) and (xi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Hence, prays to reject the suit. 32) In the present case the 2nd defendant is the purchaser of site, which is falling to the 48% of developed share of the defendant No.1. As per annexure 5, the said site measuring 45 feet X 70 feet, totally measuring 3150 square feet bearing Site No.112 found in Sy.No.101/2012, which is shown as 29th site which fallen to the share of defendant No.1. The said site property has been shown as 'B' schedule property in the present suit. As per clause 24 of JDA entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the GPA has been made by the plaintiff to the - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 defendant No.1 to develop the sites. The recitals of Clause 24 of said JDA reveals that if any disputes aroses they have to approach the sole arbitrator by mutual consent and having jurisdiction for conducting arbitration courts at Bengaluru only. In such a case the jurisdiction at Malur is not attracted as the plaintiff himself has obtained arbitration award and had also filed case before the Civil Court in AA No.420/2018 under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but now the plaintiff has come before the present court i.e., Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, contending attraction of jurisdiction to Senior Civl Judge and JMFC, Malur which is denied by defendant No.2. 33) An agency may be terminated by the principal revoking his authority or by the agent re renouncing the business of the agency or by the business of the agency as contemplated under Sections 203 to 207 of Indian Contract Act. As per the provisions of said Act and as per the Arbitration Award though in the present case JDA is terminated and GPA is revoked, now the question before the present court is plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration of sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiff and for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 and 2 not to interfere with the possession of has been sought, butupon perusal of the records i.e., legal notice dated 15- 11-2018 it issued by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 terminating the JDA is revealed subsequently as per the Arbitration Award in AC No.72/2020, dated 15092021, wherein Arbitrator has held that termination of JDA and - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 revocation of GPA valid, but upon perusal of the paper publication notice dated 16-11-2018 which revokes the GPA dated 17102012 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 registered as document No.MLR400164/201213, CD No.MLRD82 of Book 4 before the sub registrar, Malur with respect to suit schedule property mentioned as Sy.No.101/12 and other properties as per GPA has been revoked with effect from today. The said wordings reveals that GPA has revoked on 16112018, but the registered sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.2 is dated 27052015 bearing document No.MLR1 01415/201516, in Book I stored in CD No.MLRD119 before the sub registrar, Malur. The said sale deed has been executed prior to revocation of GPA as per paper publication and arbitration award of obtaining revocation of GPA dated 15.9.2021. Hence, the said sale deed holds good as revocation of said GPA is subsequent to the execution of registered sale deed made in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1. The said sale deed at present holds good. 34) The defendant No.1 having obtained authority to develop the residential sites by virtue of JDA dated 17-10 2012 and GPA dated 17102012, as per JDA/GPA valid transactions of sale has taken place between defendant No.1 and 2. The said transaction is derived authority by virtue of JDA and GPA cannot be held as invalid as it is in accordance with the terms of JDA and GPA. The defendant No.2 has contended that the said sale notice is a notice to the general public. That in order to seek the relief of - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 declaration the suit had to be filed within 3 years from the date of execution of sale deed, but the present suit is filed in the year 2020 which is beyond the period of limitation of three years from execution of registered sale deed dated 27-05-2015. The plaintiff contends that the suit is within the limitation period as he came to know about the registered sale deed on 03092020 and contends that as per Section 58 of Limitation Act, the limitation commences from the date of knowledge of registered sale deed. Hence contends that the suit is within the limitation period from 03092020, is not acceptable as plaintiff being the owner contends that he having issued notice for cancellation of JDA which reveals the date as 15112018 and GPA has been revoked on 16- 11-2018 by paper publication, the Arbitration Award case has been filed before the sole arbitrator and award is obtained on 15-09-2021. All these steps taken by the plaintiff reveals that plaintiff is more vigilant and more active in protection of his right with respect to the suit schedule property A and B wherein he has entered into JDA and GPA. Therefore the contention of the plaintiff that he is having no knowledge of execution of registered sale deed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not believable at this juncture. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the suit is not filed within the limitation period. 35) However though matter of limitation is a question of law and fact, at present this court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter as per the JDA clause 24, the arbitrator is to be appointed with mutual consent of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and it has to be filed before the courts - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 at Bengaluru only for execution. The sale deed in the present case is a subsequent transaction entered into based on the JDA and GPA entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 subsequently based on the JDA and GPA the defendant No.1 having developed and having sold the site to defendant No.2 is a valid transaction, but this transaction is derived source from JDA and GPA. If any disputes arouses regarding JDA which is related to GPA and sale transaction is concerned properties involved in JDA, wherein the property sold i.e., suit schedule B property is the subject matter of JDA, has been developed based on JDA and GPA, has been sold by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2. In case of any dispute arising based on the GPA the dispute has to be referred to the sole arbitrator by mutual consent and the said award has to be got executed exacts before the courts at Bengaluru only and this court has no jurisdiction as per clause 14 of JDA. The plaintiff has opted Bengaluru jurisdiction before sole arbitrator in AC No.72/2020 and case as per AA No.420/2018 before the Civil court, but now has come before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Malur, though having clause for jurisdiction as per Clause 24 of JDA. 36) The termination of JDA and revocation of GPA are of the subject matter of jurisdiction to be tried before the Arbitration courts at Bengaluru. Hence, the court of Arbitration at Bengaluru is having the jurisdiction. The defendant No.2 has contended that the present court at Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur has no pecuniary - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 jurisdiction as per Section 2 of Commercial Courts Act 2015. Section 2 of Commercial Courts Act reads as under: “2. Definitions.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,–– (vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders; (vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce; (xi) joint venture agreements;'' In the present case the plaintiff contends that the present suit doesn't comes under the provisions of commercial disputes, hence prays to reject the above I.A, but upon perusal of provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. As per section 2(vi) and 2(xi) construction and infrastructure contracts joint venture agreements, whichever, in present set of facts of case reveals JDA with respect to development of sites, comes under clause 2(vi) in view of section 2x(vi) of commercial courts act 2015 and clause 24(i) JDA this court had no jurisdiction. Hence, in view of the above discussions and reasons, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative. 37) POINT NO.2: In view of the above discussion and findings to Point No., I proceed to pass the following: :ORDER: I.A. No.V filed by the defendant No.2 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18203 RFA No. 141 of 2023 Consequently plaint is rejected. The parties are permitted to approach appropriate forum to redress their grievances” 7.6 Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. Point Nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly answered against the appellant and in favour of respondents. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.