- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2337 OF 2025 (SP) BETWEEN: SMT.CHANDANA THILOTTAME WIFE OF D.V. MOHAN KUMARA AGED 55 YEARS R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE BELLURU HOBLI, PIN-571 418 NAGAMANGALA TALUK …APPELLANT (BY SRI.R.GOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.B.RAJESHWARI WIFE OF LATE S.BASAVARAJU AGED 57 YEARS 2. MUKHESH C.B. SON OF LATE S.BASAVARAJU AGED 33 YEARS 3. PUNEETH C.B. SON OF LATE S. BASAVARAJU AGED 29 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF CHUNCHANAHALLI VILLAGE BELLURU HOBLI, PIN-571 418 Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DIST-571 418 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.RAMESH, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2025 PASSED IN OS.NO.28/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.III FILED U/O.VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Judge, whereby the suit for specific performance instituted by the plaintiff in O.S.No.28/2024 is rejected by invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code. The said order is under challenge. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 3. Facts leading to the case are as under; The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.28/2024 alleging that the defendants have executed a registered agreement of sale on 23.12.2017 in favour of plaintiff by receiving an advance amount of ₹7,00,000/- through cheque. The plaintiff's main assertion in the suit is that the defendants had agreed to conclude the transaction by furnishing all the relevant documents. 4. The defendants upon receipt of summons entered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire transaction. Per-contra, the defendants have contended that this suit agreement is concocted and created document. Having denied this transaction, an application was filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC., seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that suit is barred by limitation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 5. The learned Judge applying Article 54 of the Limitation Act has come to conclusion that the plaintiff was required to conclude the transaction within 6 months from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. 23.12.2017 and therefore, applying Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the plaint is rejected. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the defendants. Perused the judgments cited by both learned counsels. This court has given its anxious consideration to the pleadings and the recitals in the suit agreement. 7. The following points would arise for consideration; (i) Whether the learned Judge erred in rejecting the plaint by having recourse under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC and therefore, warrants interference? (ii) What order? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 Findings on Point No.(i):- 8. Before adverting to the impugned order, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint averments. This Court also finds it necessary to refer to the relevant recitals contained in the registered agreement to sell, which delineate the obligations of the parties, particularly those of the defendants–owners. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder: "ಪಾಯು ಾಾ ೆಡೂ ಆಯ ಾೕಕಾರುಾೆ. ಾಾ ೆಡೂ ಸತು 1ೇ ಪಾ ೆ. ಾ!ೇಶ#ರವರ ಸ%ಾ&'ತ ಸಾರುತ ೆ. ಾಾ ೆಡೂ ಸತನು) ಆದರ ಪ+ವ' ಾನೂನು ಬದ- ಾೕಕ#ಂದ 1ೇ ಪಾ ೆ. ಾ!ೇಶ#ಯವರು ಾಂಕ 05.12.2003 ರಂದು ಕಯೆ/ ಪ0ೆದು ಎಂ.ಆ2 3ೆ4 12/2003-04 ರಂೆ 5ಾೆ ಬದ6ಾವ7ೆ ಾ8ೊಂಡು 9ಾ:ೕಾನುಭವವನು) 3ೊಂ ಾನೂನು ಬದ- ಾೕಕಾರುಾೆ. 2ೇ & 3ೇ ಪಾಗಳ> 1ೇ ಪಾಯ ಮಕ/@ಾರುಾೆ. ಪಾಯರ ದರದು- ABತ ಅಂದೆ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಖF'Gೋಸ/ರ, Hೇೆ0ೆ ಸತನು) ಕಯೆ/ ೊಳIಲು 3ಾಗೂ ಇತೆ ೈ9ಾಲ ರುವMGಾ ಪಾಗಳ> ಾಾ ೆಡೂ ಸತನು) ರೂ.15,00,000/-(ಹೈದು ಲO) ಗMGೆ ಾGೆ ಕಯೆ/ ೋಡಲು ಒQR, ಅದರಂೆ ಾಂಕ : 23.12.2017 ರಂದು ಾಾ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 ೆಡೂ ಸನ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಕಯದ ಕಾರು ಪತವನು) ಬೆ 9ಾTಗಳ ಸಮOಮ ಪಾಗಳ> ಾUಂದ ಕಯದ ಮುಂಗಡ ಹಣಾ ರೂ.7,00,000/- (ಏಳ> ಲO) ಗಳನು) HೆಳXI#ನ ೆನಾ HಾಂY Zಾ5ೆಯ ಾಯ ಸಂಬಂತ [ೆY ಮೂಲಕ ಪ0ೆದುೊಂಡು ಕಯದ ಉMದ ರೂ.8,00,000/- (ಎಂಟು ಲO) ಗಳನು) ೆಡೂ ಸನ ೊಂದ] ಕಯ ಪತದ ೊಂದ] ೇ@ೆ ಪ0ೆಯಲು ಒQR, ೋಂದ] ಸಂ5ೆ 1253/2017-18 ರಂೆ ಾಂಕ: 26.12.2017 ರಂದು ಪಾಯರು ಾGೆ ೆಡೂ ಸನ ಸಂಬಂದ ೊಂದ] ಕಯದ ಕಾರು ಪತವನು) ಾ8 ೊ^_ರುಾೆ. ಸದ# ಕಯದ ಕಾರು ಪತದ` ೊಂದ]Gೆ ಅವಶaರುವ ಾಖ6ಾಗಳನು) ಒದೊಂಡು 6 ಂಗ@ೆXಳGೆ ಕಯಪತ ಬೆದುೊಡಲು ಪಾಯರು ಒQRರುಾೆ. 3) ಾಯು 9ಾಕಷು_ Hಾ# ಪಾಗಳನು) ಉMದ ಕಯದ ರೂ.8,00,000/-(ಎಂಟು ಲO) ಪ0ೆದು ಕಯಪತ ಬೆದು ೊಡಲು ೇMದರೂ ಸಹ ಪಾಗಳ> ಇನು) ಕಯಪತ ೊಂದ]Gೆ ಅವಶಾದ ಾಖ6ಾಗಳನು) ಒದೊಂ8ಲ` ಎಂದು ಾಲವನು) ಮುಂದೂ8ರುಾೆ. ಪಾಯರ ಾತನು) ಾಯು ನಂ ರುಾೆ cೕGೆ ಸುಾರು 2 ವಷ' ಕ@ೆದ ನಂತರ ಎ6ೆ`0ೆ 6ಾY 0ೌe ಆದು-, %ಾವf ೇ ವವಹರ7ೆಯು ನ0ೆಯದ ಾರಣ ಪಾಯರು ಾGೆ ಕಯಪತ ಾ8ೊಡುವf ಾ 3ೇ½ ಾಲವ£ÀÄß ಮುಂದೂ8ರುಾೆ." ". . . . . . .ಇನು) ಉMೆ gಬಲಗು ರೂ 8,00.000/- (sic. 8,00,000/-) (ಎಂಟು ಲO) ರೂhಾUಗಳನು) ಈ ಾ#ೕಖು6ಾGಾಯು ಅೕ ಜರೂಾ ೊಂದ]Gೆ Hೇಾದ ಮೂಲ ಎ6ಾ` ಾಖ6ಾಗಳನು) ಅ ಜರೂಾ AಮGೆ ಒದೊಟು_ Aೕವf ಕೆ ಾಗ ಬಂದು AಮGಾಗೕ ಅಥಾ ABlಂದ ಅ:ಾರ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 3ೊಂದವ#Gಾಗೕ 3ಾಗೂ Aೕವf ಸೂFದವ#Gಾಗೕ ಾಖ6ಾಗ@ಾದ ಆರು ಂಗಳಾU ೆmಳGೆ %ಾವf ೇ ತಂnೆ ತಕಾರು ಾಡ ೆ ಕಮಾದ ಕಯ ಪತ ಬೆದುೊಟು_ ಉMೆ gಬಲಗನು) ಕಯ ಪತದ ೊಂದ] ೇ@ೆಯ` ಪ0ೆಯಲು ಒQRರುೇೆ. ಇ`ಂದ ಮುಂ ೆ ಅೕ ಜರೂಾ ಾವf ಾಖ6ಾಗಳನು) AಮGೆ ಒದೊಟು_ ಕಯ ಪತವನು) ಬೆದುೊಡಲು ಬದoಾರುೇೆ. ಸದ# AಮGೆ ಕಯಪತೆ/ ಸಂಬಂ:ದ ಾಖ6ಾಗಳನು) ಒದೊಟು_ ಕಯಪತವನು) ಬೆದುೊಡಲು ತQRದ-` ನಮlಗಳ aರುದo ಸೂಕ ಾನೂನು ಕಮ ಜರು Aೕವf ನಮGೆ ೊಡHೇಾದ ಉMೆ gಬಲಗನು) ಸೂಕ ಘನ ಾ%ಾಲಯದ` qೇವ] ಇಟು_ ೆಡೂ ಸತನು) ಾ%ಾಲಯದ ಮು5ಾಂತರ Aಮl 3ೆಸ#Gೆ ೊಂದ] ಾ8ೊಳIಲು ಸಂಪ+ಣ'ಾದ ಅ:ಾರವನು) AಮGೆ Aೕ8ರುೇೆ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ಸದ# ಜBೕನನು) ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ_ ಇ6ಾ5ೆUಂದ ಅಳೆ ಹದು-ಬಸು ಾ8, ೊಂದ] 9ೆ/4 ಾ8, ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ_ ಇ6ಾ5ೆUಂದ AಾhೇO7ಾ ಪಾಣವನು) 3ಾಗೂ ಇA)ತೆ ಾಖ6ಾಗಳನು) ಒದೊಟು_ AಮGೆ ಕಮಾದ ಕಯ ಪತವನು) ಬೆದುೊಡಲು ಬದoಾರುೇೆ. . . . . . ." 9. On a careful reading of the plaint averments along with the relevant recitals extracted from the registered agreement to sell, it becomes manifest that the defendants being the owners and vendors of the suit property had unequivocally undertaken specific contractual - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 obligations. The recitals contained in the agreement clearly stipulate that the defendants were required to secure and furnish all the relevant documents pertaining to the suit property. It is only upon furnishing such documents that the defendants had agreed to call upon the plaintiff to complete the transaction and thereafter execute the sale deed either in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of any nominee suggested by the plaintiff within a period of six months. 10. If the aforesaid recitals extracted supra are examined in their proper perspective, it becomes evident that the agreement to sell casts a clear and primary obligation on the defendants–vendors to collect all necessary title and revenue documents relating to the suit property and furnish the same to the plaintiff so as to enable the plaintiff to verify the title and proceed with the completion of the transaction. The agreement further contemplates that only after such compliance by the defendants would the plaintiff be required to tender the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 balance sale consideration and have the sale deed executed. 11. In the light of these covenants, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judge has unfortunately misread and misconstrued the pleadings and the terms of the agreement. The learned Judge has failed to advert to the specific conditions incorporated in the agreement to sell which clearly impose obligations on the defendants–vendors. When the vendors themselves have undertaken under the agreement that they would collect and furnish all relevant documents relating to the suit property and thereafter call upon the plaintiff to complete the transaction, any alleged delay or breach at this stage cannot be attributed to the plaintiff. On the contrary, the initial obligation squarely rested on the defendants to place the necessary documents before the plaintiff and thereby facilitate the completion of the sale transaction. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 12. The plaintiff, as can be gathered from the plaint averments and the contractual terms, was only required to pay the balance sale consideration of ₹8,00,000/- and complete the transaction upon being furnished with the relevant documents. It also cannot be lost sight of that a substantial portion of the sale consideration, namely ₹7,00,000/-, had already been paid by the plaintiff under the agreement to sell, thereby clearly indicating the plaintiff’s bona fides and readiness to proceed with the transaction. 13. Though the defendants have not completely denied the transaction, their principal contention is that the agreement to sell being of the year 2017, the plaintiff ought to have concluded the transaction within six months from the date of its execution. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants would further contend that no documents were required to be furnished by the vendors and therefore the plaintiff cannot rely upon any alleged non-compliance on the part of the defendants. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 However, such a contention cannot be accepted at this stage as it runs contrary to the express terms and conditions embodied in the agreement to sell itself, which is the very subject matter of the suit. The recitals clearly demonstrate that the vendors were under an obligation to secure and furnish the relevant documents and thereafter call upon the plaintiff to complete the transaction. 14. On an overall examination of the plaint averments coupled with the covenants contained in the suit agreement, this Court is of the view that the learned Judge has erroneously invoked the principles of limitation to non-suit the plaintiff at the threshold. The learned Judge has failed to take note of the fact that the suit is one for specific performance of contract and that the plea of limitation raised by the defendants in such matters ordinarily constitutes a mixed question of fact and law. Without undertaking a meaningful examination of the contractual recitals and without permitting the parties to lead evidence on the factual aspects, the learned Judge - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 has proceeded to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation. Such an approach, particularly at the nascent stage of the proceedings, is likely to result in miscarriage of justice and may cause serious prejudice and irreparable loss to the plaintiff. 15. It is no doubt true that the Court possesses the power to dismiss a suit if it is found to be expressly barred by law. Such a determination, however, ordinarily arises in the context of Section 3 of the Limitation Act after a proper adjudication of the relevant facts. When the defendants raise a plea of limitation in a suit for specific performance, the same has to be examined in the backdrop of the contractual stipulations and the surrounding circumstances, which necessarily involves appreciation of both factual and legal aspects. Therefore, resorting to the drastic power of rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure without examining the contractual obligations undertaken by the defendants cannot be said to be justified. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 Consequently, the order impugned suffers from patent perversity. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants also does not have any application to the facts of the present case. 16. The material on record further indicates that, as per the plaint averments and the covenants embodied in the registered agreement to sell, the plaintiff was required to complete the transaction within six months only after the defendants furnished the relevant documents relating to the suit property. Thus, the commencement of the six- month period itself was contingent upon the defendants performing their part of the obligation, namely collecting the necessary documents and furnishing them to the plaintiff while calling upon him to complete the transaction. In the absence of such compliance on the part of the defendants, the question of attributing delay solely to the plaintiff does not arise at this stage. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 17. Having regard to these aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasoning assigned by the learned Judge and the manner in which the matter has been approached are fundamentally flawed. The learned Judge has failed to appreciate that the agreement to sell itself imposes certain reciprocal obligations on the defendant–vendors and that the plaintiff’s obligation to complete the sale transaction was triggered only upon the defendants performing their contractual duties. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the plaint cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the Affirmative. 18. Point No.(ii):- For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 22.08.2025 passed on I.A.No.III filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC., in - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 O.S.No.28/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala is hereby set-aside. (iii) Consequently, the plaint is restored to file. (iv) Since the parties are represented by their respective counsels, they are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 01.04.2026 without further notice. (v) The Registry is hereby directed to refund the Court fee strictly adhering to the procedure contemplated under Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. (vi) Any observations made by this Court during the course of this order are confined only to disposal of this appeal. The Trial Court shall not get influenced any observations made by this Court while deciding the suit on merits. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11289 RFA No. 2337 of 2025 (v) I.A.No.2/2025 - impleading application stands dismissed reserving liberty to the plaintiff to implead pendente lite purchasers before the Trial Court. (vi) Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7