Karnataka High Court
CRP/162/2020 of S N MAJUNATH Vs UNION OF INDIA on 21 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010088582020 NC: 2026:KHC:52233 CRP No. 162 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 162 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: S.N.MANJUNATH S/O LATE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 162 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
S.N.MANJUNATH
S/O LATE S.P.NARAYANASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.10, 1ST CROSS,
MARUTHI LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 094
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT.MANEESHA KONGOVI, ADVOCATE AND
SRI.SHIVABHUSHAN S. HATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
THE DEPARTMENT OF SPACE
THE INDIA SPACE RESEARCH
ORGANIZATION
ANTARIKSHA BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 094
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SENIOR ADMIN OFFICER
2.
THE COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK, SANKEY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 020
3.
THE AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
BY ITS SECRETARY
NO.39, GANDHIBAZAR
BENGALURU - 560 004
4.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
5.
SMT. GAJALAKSHMI AMMAL
W/O LATE S P NARAYANASWAMY GOWDA
R/AT NO.10, 1ST FLOOR,
MARUTHI LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE
BENGLAURU - 560 094
6.
SMT. GIRIJA S GOWDA
D/O LATE S.P.NARAYANASWAMY GOWDA
R/AT NO. 175, KMC QUARTERS
MANIPAL - 576 119
7.
SMT. INDIRA JAYAPRAKASH
D/O LATE S.P.NARAYANASWAMY GOWDA
R/AT NO. 309, DR BLOCK,
USHAS APARTMENTS
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 011
8.
HEMANTH KUMAR
S/O LATE S.P.NARAYANASWAMY GOWDA
R/AT NO. 1220, W-IRIS DRIVE GILBERT
ARIZONA - 85234
USA
9.
SMT. TARA MURTHY
D/O LATE S P NARAYANASWAMY GOWDA
R/AT NO.8, AIMS
TEACHERS QUARTERS, B.C.NAGAR
BELLUR - 571 438
HC-KAR
10.
SMT. POORNIMA PRASAD
D/O LATE S.P.NARAYANASWAMY GOWDA
R/AT NO. 738, JULIAN DRIVE
COLLEGE VILLE
P.A 19426
USA
11.
SMT. S.N.ANURADHA
D/O LATE S.P.NARAYANASWAMY GOWDA
R/AT NO. 794, 9TH 8 A MAIN,
II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 038
12.
SRI V.N.KESHAVA
S/O V.S.NARAYAN IYENGAR
NO.17/1, NARAYANA REDDY COLONY,
ANNASWAMY MUDALIR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 042
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.KUMAR M.N., CGC FOR R1
SRI.MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R4
SRI.PARASHURAM
AJJAMPUR
LAKSHMAN,
ADVOCATE
FOR R6
R5 IS DEAD, SURVIVED BY THE PETITIONER AND R7 TO
R11 V/O/DATED: 10.03.2022
R2, R3 AND R7 TO R12 ARE NOTICE DISPENSED WITH
V/O/DATED: 18/07/2023)
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 18.09.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO. 5810/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE,
(CCH.NO.15)
AT
BENGALURU,
NEGATIVELY
ANSWERING THE ISSUE NO.5 REGARDING LIMITATION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
HC-KAR
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 order dated 18.09.2019 passed on issue No.5 in O.S.No.5810/2016 by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, petitioner/defendant No.5 is before this Court.
2. The respondent No.1 herein instituted O.S.No.5810/2016 seeking declaration, cancellation of sale deeds, and recovery of possession. In the suit, an issue of limitation was framed as a preliminary issue, and the trial Court gave a finding that the suit is well within the limitation.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, earlier, the society that allotted land to the petitioner’s predecessor filed a suit in the year 1985 against BDA, and that suit was dismissed. However, in that suit, the defendants came to know that the petitioner is setting up his title to the property. According to the petitioner, it is in the knowledge of the respondent/plaintiff way back in the year 1985, and also in 1980 as the sale deed is executed, the respondent had constructive notice of the said document. Hence, the suit is
HC-KAR
clearly barred by limitation. All these aspects were not appreciated by the trial Court.
4. Learned Central Government counsel appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that, in fact, even in the plaint itself, it is stated in the earlier suit that Survey No.75 is allotted to the respondent. The earlier claim was in respect of Sy.Nos.73/3 and 73/4, and, according to them, under the guise of that they are claiming the land in Sy.No.75. All these issues have to be decided by the Court. Coming to the limitation, it is submitted that the trial Court has rightly held that the suit is well within the limitation.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. According to the petitioner/defendant No. 5, the plaintiff denied the title way back in the year 1985, and the suit was filed in 2016, so it is barred by limitation. According to the petitioner, the earlier suit is in respect of Sy.No.73/3 and 73/4, and their property is in Sy.No.75, which has to be determined by the trial Court after the evidence is adduced.
HC-KAR
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, this issue cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. In the light of the stand taken by both parties with regard to the survey numbers and other aspects, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be set aside. The issue of limitation shall be considered by the trial Court along with the other issues. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order:
ORDER
i. The order dated 18.09.2019 passed on issue No.5 in O.S.No.5810/2016 by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, is set aside.
ii. The trial Court shall consider the issue of limitation along with the other issues after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence.
iii. All contentions are kept open.
iv. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and none of the observations shall be construed as an expression of this Court.
HC-KAR
v. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
vi. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 MR