IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR C.R.P. No.218/2019 BETWEEN:
1. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT GOVINDAPURA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE- 562 114.
2. RAMAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT GOVINDAPURA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-562 114. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.KALYAN R, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA W/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, 2. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 3. SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 4. SRI. ERAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 R/AT BALAGERE VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK PIN CODE - 560 087.
5. SRI. KOORLAPPA S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT VANACHANAHALLI VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK - 562 114 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
6. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE ARJUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 7. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE ARJUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 8. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE ARJUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 8 R/AT VANACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK - 562 114 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS THIS C.R.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.588/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (b) OF CPC.
THIS C.R.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit in O.S.No.588/2008 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bengaluru. The suit is for declaration that the sale deeds dated 27.08.1999 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd and 3rd respondents are null and void and for permanent injunction. The subject matter of the suit is land to an extent of 3 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.5 of Kurubara Gollahalli, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
3. The petitioners made an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. They stated that the suit was not maintainable as it was highly time barred from the date of execution of sale deed dated 27.08.1999. The trial Court came to the conclusion that limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, plaint could not be rejected on the basis of the application made by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in paragraph No.12 of the plaint, it is clearly stated that the cause of action arose for the suit on the date of execution of the sale deeds. The sale deeds were executed on 27.08.1999. The suit was filed in the year 2008. Therefore suit is time barred. Therefore, the trial Court should have rejected the plaint.
5. For a suit of this nature limitation is three years.
But in paragraph 9 of the plaint it is stated that the plaintiffs came to know about the sale deeds dated 27.08.1999 very recently i.e., just prior to filing of the suit. I am of the opinion, that paragraphs 9 and 12 should be read together. Though it is stated in paragraph 12 cause of action arose on 27.08.1999, the actual limitation runs from the date of knowledge. Therefore, as rightly held by the trial Court, limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. The issue with regard to limitation may be framed by the trial Court after recording the evidence. The rejection of application is just and proper. The trial Court has come to a right conclusion. I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT: BMS