Karnataka High Court
Rekha W/O Ramesh Alias Ramanagouda … vs Pawankumar S/O Rameshgouda Alias … on 9 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5306
CRP No. 100002 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100002 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. REKHA W/O RAMESH @ RAMANAGOUDA
RUDRAGOUDAR,
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KURUGOVINAKOPPA, TQ. NARAGUND,
DIST. GADAG-582206.
2. LAXMI D/O RAMESH @ RAMESHGOUDA
RUDRAGOUDAR,
(LAXMI W/O RAMACHANDRA SATYARADDI),
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KURUGOVINAKOPPA, TQ. NARAGUND,
DIST. GADAG-582206.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
PAWANKUMAR
Digitally signed by
S/O RAMESHGOUDA @ RAMANAGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.09 10:09:28
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
+0100
R/O. VAJJARMATTI, TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587313.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SB HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.09.2024
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MUDHOL IN OS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5306
CRP No. 100002 of 2025
HC-KAR
NO.348/2022 REJECTING I.A.NO.II FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(A),(B), (C) AND (D) OF CPC SEEKING
TO REJECT THE PLAINT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE
IA NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(A)(B)(C) AND (D) CPC
IN OS NO.348/2022, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 26.09.2024 passed by Additional
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol1, on IA no.II in OS
no.348/2022, this petition is filed.
2. Sri Arun L. Neelopant, learned counsel for petitioners
submitted that petitioners were defendants no.1 and 2 in OS
no.348/2022 filed by respondent herein (plaintiff) for declaration
that gift deed dated 06.07.2022 executed by defendant no.1 in
favour of defendant no.2 as null and void; for mandatory
injunction directing defendant no.1 to execute registered
reconveyance sale deed and permanent injunction restraining
1
For short, ‘Trial Court’
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5306
CRP No. 100002 of 2025
HC-KAR
defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession
over suit property etc.
3. It was submitted, in plaint, plaintiff stated that
defendants no.1 and 2 were his mother and sister. And that
entire sale consideration for purchase of suit property under
registered sale deed dated 25.03.2022 was paid by plaintiff. In
view of same, defendant no.1 had subsequently, reverted land
bearing Sy.no.266 measuring 7 Acres 15 guntas to plaintiff
under registered gift deed. However, defendant no.1 illegally
transferred other land bearing Sy.no.265 measuring 5 Acres 12
guntas, in favour of defendant no.2, as if she was absolute
owner thereof.
4. On appearance, defendant filed IA no.II under Order
VII Rule 11 (a) to (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC‘,
for short) for rejection of plaint contending that plaint did not
disclose cause of action and that sale deed dated 25.03.2022
showed consideration amount of Rs.32,50,000/-. It was
submitted, even on a complete and meaningful reading of entire
plaint, it would emerge that plaintiff’s claim in respect of suit
property was about their purchase by plaintiff in name of
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5306
CRP No. 100002 of 2025
HC-KAR
defendant no.1, which would be hit by Sections 4 and 9 of
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (‘BT Act‘, for
short). It was contended, plaint did not disclose basis for
plaintiff’s claim and as defendant no.1 had received land
acquisition compensation amount for submergence of her
Stridhana properties, she had money for purchase of suit
property. Further, plaintiff claimed relationship between plaintiff
and defendant no.1 was fiduciary in nature even when as on
date of sale deeds, i.e. 25.03.2022, when he would have been
30 years of age. Therefore, claim of defendant being in fiduciary
capacity to plaintiff was without basis. Apart from above, even
plaintiff’s claim that he had paid Rs.1,67,82,500/- towards
purchase of suit property, without particulars about source of
such huge amount.
5. Though above contentions were duly urged, under
impugned order, trial Court rejected IA no.II by overlooking
above contentions. In support of his submission he relied on
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sri Nimbanna v.
Shivananda Kinnal and Anr.2, for proposition that when it was
asserted in plaint that a property was purchased by a person
2
SLP (C) No.27426 of 2018, Disposed of on 01.02.2021
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5306
CRP No. 100002 of 2025
HC-KAR
from his funds in name of another, bar under Section 4 of BT
Act, would apply and contention that such other person was
holding it in fiduciary capacity would not be available. Under
above circumstances, rejection of application on cursory
reasoning that whether transaction had taken place in fiduciary
capacity and exempt from applicability of provisions of BT Act
would require trial, amounted to material irregularity calling for
interference by this Court.
6. On other hand, Sri SB Hebballi, learned counsel for
respondent (plaintiff) opposed petition. At outset, it was
submitted, suit claim was based on plaintiff’s assertion that
defendant no.1 was plaintiff’s mother and defendant no.2 his
sister and that he was very affectionate towards them. He had
also stated that on 23.06.2021, Smt.Sujata w/o Shivanagouda
Patil, Shivanagouda Krushnagouda Patil, Sachchidanand
Shivanagouda Patil, Smt.Rajeshwari Shivanagouda Patil had
executed a registered agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff and
defendant no.1 in respect of suit property. He had also stated
that defendant no.1 did not have any source of income and her
name was added out of love, affection and respect. Plaintiff had
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5306
CRP No. 100002 of 2025
HC-KAR
also provided particulars about manner and mode of payment of
consideration for transaction including borrowing loan from ICICI
Bank. Plaintiff had also stated that defendant no.1 had agreed
that her name was added for dummy sake and entire sale
consideration was paid by plaintiff. Therefore, he allowed
vendees to execute sale deeds exclusively in name of defendant
no.1. He had also stated that as per agreement on 10.05.2022,
defendant no.1 reverted back land bearing RS no.266 by
executing registered gift deed but, had illegally gifted land
bearing RS no.265 in favour of defendant no.2.
7. It was submitted, plaintiff had clearly stated cause of
action arose on 25.03.2022 when sale deeds were executed in
favour of defendant no.1 only and subsequently when she
illegally transferred one of properties in favour of defendant no.2
and thereafter, when defendant no.2 began asserting her title
over said property.
8. Thus, pleading in plaint would indicate that plaintiff’s
claim would fall within exceptions to bar under BT Act. It was
submitted, even while dismissing IA no.II, trial Court had
observed that matter required trial and contentions of
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5306
CRP No. 100002 of 2025
HC-KAR
defendants were not foreclosed. In view of above, impugned
order did not suffer from any legal infirmity calling for
interference and sought dismissal of petition.
9. In support of his submission he relied upon decisions
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pawan Kumar v. Babulal
since deceased through LRs and Ors.3, for proposition that
whether suit was barred by provisions of BT Act or whether
saved by exception under Section 4 (3) of BT Act would require
trial and could not be decided while considering application under
10. Reliance was also placed on Smt.Shaifali Gupta v.
Smt.Vidya Devi Gupta and Ors.4, for proposition that
objections raised by defendants about maintainability of suit in
view of bar under BT Act would be mixed question of fact and
law and are to be considered only on basis pleadings and
evidence of parties and not at threshold on basis of plaint
allegations alone. On above grounds, sought for dismissal of
revision petition.
3
(2019) 4 SCC 367
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1181
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5306
CRP No. 100002 of 2025
HC-KAR
11. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused
impugned order.
12. This revision petition is by defendants no.1 and 2
challenging rejection of their application filed under Order VII
Rule 11(a) to (d) of CPC.
13. From above, it is seen that challenge against
impugned order is based mainly on suit being barred under
Section 4 of BT Act.
14. There can be no quarrel about law that while
considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC,
averments in plaint alone would be material and defence set-up
would be irrelevant. Though from decisions in Pawan Kumar
and Smt.Shaifali Gupta’s cases (supra), it would appear that
normally plea of suit being barred by provisions of BT Act would
be mixed question of law and fact and would not be appropriate
to be decided on a plaint averments alone, in Nimbanna‘s case
(supra), it is held, where assertions in plaint are unequivocal and
attract bar under Section 4 of BT Act, trial Court would be
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5306
CRP No. 100002 of 2025
HC-KAR
justified in considering application under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC and nipping in bud frivolous suits.
15. There is no dispute that as per definition of ‘benami
transaction’ under Section 2 (a) of BTA means and includes
transactions wherein a property is transferred to or is held by a
person and consideration for such property is paid by another
person.
16. On a complete and meaningful reading of entire
plaint averments reveals, it is specific and unequivocal case of
plaintiff that suit property along with another was purchased
under registered sale deed dated 25.03.2022 exclusively in name
of defendant no.1 even though entire consideration was paid by
plaintiff along, as defendant no.1 was mother of plaintiff and he
was very affectionate towards her and also out of respect, with
agreement that she would revert back properties to him. It is
also stated that prior to sale deed, vendors had executed an
agreement of sale wherein said properties were agreed to be
sold in joint names of plaintiff and defendant no.1.
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5306
CRP No. 100002 of 2025
HC-KAR
17. Thus, there is clear assertion about purchase of suit
property in name of defendant no.1 on consideration paid by
plaintiff. It is also seen prayers (A) and (B) sought in suit are for
declaration about gift deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour
of defendant no.2 in respect of suit property as null and void and
for mandatory injunction directing defendant no.1 to execute
registered sale deed by way of re-conveyance in favour of
plaintiff.
18. Though a claim is made about sale transaction being
in fiduciary capacity, as noted in Nimbanna‘s case (supra),
there is no assertion by plaintiff that consideration for
transactions were made out of joint family funds. On other hand,
it is specifically asserted that entire consideration was paid by
plaintiff alone. There is also no assertion that property was held
by defendant no.1 for benefit of Hindu Undivided Family. It is
rather asserted that defendant no.1 held it for benefit of plaintiff
alone.
19. In view of above, unequivocal facts, there would be
no need to allow suit clearly attracting bar under provisions of BT
Act to proceed to trial. Trial Court was not justified in rejecting
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5306
CRP No. 100002 of 2025
HC-KAR
application on ground, whether transaction was in fiduciary
capacity required evidence. Therefore, it is held rejection of
application by trial Court suffers from material irregularity.
20. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i) Revision Petition is allowed. Impugned
order dated 26.09.2024 passed by
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Mudhol, on IA no.II in OS no.348/2022 is
set-aside.
ii) IA no.II is allowed, consequently, plaint in
OS no.348/2022 stands rejected.
iii) Pending applications, if any, stands
disposed of as unnecessary.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CKK
LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 1
