Karuna Kumar K M vs K.M. Gangadharamma & Ors.

R Devdas, J

The petitioner is defendant No.1 in O.S.No.60/2020 and he is aggrieved of the rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a)(b)(d) of CPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties by meets and grounds and for allotment of half share each to the plaintiffs while also seeking a declaration to hold that the alleged Release Deed dated 19.08.2001 as fraudulent, invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs. One of the grounds raised by the applicant-defendant No.1 was that the plaintiffs, although aware of the fact that plaintiff No.1 had executed a registered Release Deed dated 19.08.2001 giving up all her rights in respect of the suit schedule properties has cleverly stated that she came to know of the Release Deed only when a reply was given by the defendants to the notice issued by the plaintiffs, regarding the execution of the Release Deed.

It is however pointed out that in paragraph 10 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that they approached the Sub-Registrar office and obtained copy of the alleged Release Deed dated 19.08.2001 and to their surprise, they found that the document is a created document. It is also stated that defendant No.1 exploited the loneliness and inability of plaintiff No.1 and had obtained her signatures on some papers.

Learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh reported in AIR 2019 SC 1430. Learned Counsel submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered a similar case where a registered Gift Deed was executed by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs did not raise a challenge to the registered Gift Deed. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that the registered document and the execution of the same could not be disputed by the plaintiffs. On the other hand, by clever drafting, the plaintiffs sought to institute a suit for partition despite the fact that the plaintiffs have given up their rights in terms of the registered instrument. The Hon'ble Apex Court therefore held that the courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the items of the suit schedule properties either at schedule ‘A’, schedule ‘B’ or schedule ‘C’, is not part of the alleged Release Deed. It is submitted that the alleged Release Deed does not contain any schedule of immovable property in which plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein is said to have released her rights. It is therefore the contention of the plaintiffs that the signature of plaintiff No.1 was obtained fraudulently on the document by stating that the signatures are being obtained for some other purpose.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondents and on producing the petition papers, this Court finds that for the first time the copy of the alleged Release Deed is being produced before this Court and as rightly stated by the learned Counsel for the respondents the Release Deed does not contain any schedule of immovable property. It is also to be noticed that this aspect of the matter is being canvassed before this Court for the first time. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the Release Deed does not contain the schedule of the immovable properties and definitely not any of the items found in the suit schedule whether it is schedule ‘A’, schedule ‘B’ or schedule ‘C’, property, the matter requires full fledged trial.

Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.