Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1721 (KAR)

Rajashekhar v. Kesari

2020-09-04

B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT B.M. Shyam Prasad, J. - This petition is filed by the first defendant in O.S. No.632 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Hubballi (for short, 'the Civil Court'). The petitioner-first defendant is aggrieved by the Civil Court's order dated 19th January 2019 rejecting his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-first defendant, the learned counsel for the first respondentplaintiff and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the third respondent are heard in the matter for final disposal with their consent. 3. It is submitted in unison by the learned counsel for the parties that the first respondent has filed the suit in O.S. No.632 of 2012 as the owner of the property bearing CTS Nos.1106 and 1107 situate at Anchatageri Oni, Hubbali for declaration that she, as the owner of such property, has a right to use and enjoy a common passage and a Well in the property bearing CTS No.1108 of Anchatageri Oni, Hubbali. The first respondent has sought for declaration of such right and for mandatory injunction to the petitioner to remove encroachment which is described as "illegal construction" and to facilitate her use of such passage and Well. The petitioner has filed his written statement denying the plaint averments. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has executed a gift deed dated 20.04.2015 transferring the immoveable property in CTS Nos.1106 and 1107 of Anchatageri Oni, Hubballi, in favour of her daughter. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint contending that upon transfer of the property vide the gift deed dated 20th April 2015 in favour of the daughter, the plaintiff has lost the cause of action, and because the cause of action for the suit is lost, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. This application has not found favour with the Civil Court and therefore, by the impugned order, the Civil Court has rejected the application. 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that after the impugned order, the first respondent's daughter is brought on record as a coplaintiff and presently, the suit is being prosecuted by both the first respondent and her daughter. 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that after the impugned order, the first respondent's daughter is brought on record as a coplaintiff and presently, the suit is being prosecuted by both the first respondent and her daughter. In the light of the subsequent event, the suit cannot be rejected on any ground much less on the ground that the first respondent has lost cause of action for the suit. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not deny the subsequent event of the transferee-donee being brought on record as a co-plaintiff, but contends that the suit would not be maintainable either at the instance of the first respondent or the now impleaded transferee the second plaintiff. The first respondent has lost the cause of action with the execution of the gift deed, and her daughter, now impleaded, cannot assert that she has the cause of action as of the date of the suit. 6. On considering the rival submissions and the undisputed facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would suffice to dispose of the civil revision petition observing that the petitioner-first defendant could pursue both these defences before the Trial Court in the light of the subsequent event viz., transferee-donee being brought on record and if such defence is persued by the petitioner-first defendant, the Civil Court shall consider the same without being influenced by any observation made in the impugned order. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of.