Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 24 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Manjunath C.M. and Tejaswini S.; Respondents – Rashmi N., Gowramma, C.M. Munikrishna, Mohan Kumar, Hema, Anjanamurthy, and The Bangalore City Co‑operative Bank (represented by its Assistant General Manager).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Regular First Appeal (Section 96 CPC) against the judgment and decree dated 12 January 2026 of the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which had dismissed the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC.
  • Background: The suit sought partition and separate possession of ancestral property (Municipal Site No.66/7, PID 96‑239‑66/7). The property was partitioned on 22 September 2010, allotted to Gowramma, mortgaged to the Bank on three occasions (21 Dec 2012, 3 May 2019, 19 Mar 2021), sold to Rashmi N. on 16 May 2025, and re‑mortgaged to the Bank the same day. The Bank later invoked the SARFAESI Act and took possession on 30 April 2026.
  • Plaintiff Contentions: Alleged that their signatures on the partition deed and mortgage deeds were obtained by misrepresentation (they believed the documents were for loan purposes only) and that the registered instruments should not bind them. No specific prayer for cancellation of the partition deed was made; the relief sought was partition and separate possession.
  • Defendant Contentions: Asserted that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was barred by limitation, as the partition deed was executed in 2010 and the suit was filed in 2025, well beyond the three‑year limitation period for challenging a registered instrument.
  • Legal Issues Considered:

1. Whether the suit disclosed a cause of action.

2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.

  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The plaintiff, being an executant of the 2010 partition deed, had knowledge of the instrument; the suit was filed fifteen years later, exceeding the three‑year limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
  • The plaint did not specifically pray for cancellation of the partition deed nor allege fraud with requisite particulars; therefore, no cause of action existed.
  • The relief sought against the Bank (defendant 7) would interfere with SARFAESI proceedings, which are barred for civil courts under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
  • Precedents (CBI v Prabha Jain, Uma Devi v Anand Kumar, and others) were cited to affirm that a suit barred by limitation must be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d).
  • Conclusion: The trial court’s order rejecting the plaint was upheld; the appeal was dismissed.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Any pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed.

Topics: Court Proceedings, SARFAESI Act