Karnataka High Court
CRP/853/2026 of SRI. MUKTHAR MAHTO @ HAJI MUKHTAR MOHITU Vs SRI. GOVINDAPPA on 28 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010664692026 NC: 2026:KHC:53827 CRP No. 853 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 853 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI. MUKTHAR MAHTO @ HAJI MUKHTAR
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 853 OF 2026 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MUKTHAR MAHTO @
HAJI MUKHTAR MOHITU
S/O SRI. ABDUL SAMAD
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 31/99, MADANAPURA,
VARANASI,
UTTAR PRADESH
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHINAV ANAND K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. GOVINDAPPA
S/O. SRI. RUDRAPPA @ RUDRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2.
SRI. KARIYAPPA
S/O. SRI. RUDRAPPA @ RUDRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
3.
SRI. JAJURAPPA
S/O. SRI. RUDRAPPA @ RUDRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
4.
SMT. EERAMMA
W/O. LATE SRI. DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
5.
SMT. DODDAMMA
D/O. LATE SRI. DASAPPA,
W/O. SRI. LAKSHMANA,
6.
SRI KUMAR
SINCE DECEASED REPTD. BY HIS LRS.
SMT. RADHA
W/O. LATE SRI. KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
7.
MASTER. DHAVAN.K.
S/O. LATE SRI. KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
8.
KUMARI. VARSHINI
D/O. LATE SRI. KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8
BEING MINORS REPTD. BY
THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GURDIAN
SMT. RADHA
RESPONDENT NO.6
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8 ARE
RESIDENTS OF KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT -560 060
9.
SRI. SHANTHA KUMAR
S/O LATE SRI. THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 54, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
SADHASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 003.
…RESPONDENTS
HC-KAR
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 15.06.2026 PASSED ON IA IN OS NO.136/2022
ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE
IA FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (b) OF CPC, DATED
10.09.2025 FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.1/2025 filed under order VII Rule 11 (a) & (b) of CPC in OS.No.136/2022 dated 15.06.2026 by the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, the defendant is before this court.
2. The respondent herein had filed a suit seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property and to declare that the sale deed dated 04.01.2021 is not binding on the plaintiff and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Rudrappa executed a GPA on 08.02.1995 in favour of defendant No.1 and he died on 07.01.1997. Basing on the said GPA, the GPA holder had executed a sale deed 08.04.2021. After the death of Rudrappa, the GPA holder has
HC-KAR
no authority to execute the document; based on that, he has filed the suit. The petitioner/defendant has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court by order impugned had rejected the application.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that when the GPA is of the year 1995, based on that, the sale deed was executed, and the plaintiffs cannot question the said documents. The trial court, without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, has rejected the application.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The trial Court has rightly held that the issues that are raised by the petitioner have to be decided during the course of the trial, as these are all disputed questions of fact. In the light of the same, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order impugned. Hence, this court is passing the following:
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ii. However it is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter and it is left open to the parties to take all contentions before the court. iii. Pending IAs., in this petition shall stand dismissed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 *AK