- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25249 CRP No. 19 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 19 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KALASHANAIAH @ PAPANNA, S/O LATE DODDASHANAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 2. SRI. SHANEGOWDA S/O LATE DODASHANAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 3. SRI. KEMPAIAH S/O LATE DODDASHANAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT SRIKANTAIAHANAPALYA, KEMBALALU POST, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UMASHANKAR L, ADVOCATE AND SRI. MUNIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHANAIAH S/O LAT SHANAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25249 CRP No. 19 of 2025 1(A). SMT, CHIKKAMMA W/O LATE SHANAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT SRIKANTAIANAPALYA, KEMBALALU POST, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK AND DIST., SINCE DEAD LR OF R1(A) IS ALREADY ON RECORDS AS 1(B) ND 1(C). 1(B). SMT.SHANTHAMMA, D/O LATE SHANAIAH, W/O G.K. MUDDURAJ, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO. 123, 3RD MAIN, 9TH CROSS, J C NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 086. LR'S OF R1(A). 1(C). SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE SHANAIAH, W/O RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT THIPPASANDRA, THIPPASANDRA POST AND HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 2. SRI. DODDASHANAIAH S/O LATE SHANAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 3. SRI. SHANAIAH S/O LATE NANJUNDIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25249 CRP No. 19 of 2025 4. SRI. ANANDAIAH S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 5. SRI. SHIVANNA, S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 6. SRI. GANGANNA, W/O LATE KEMPASHANAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 7. SRI. KARNA, S/O LATE KALASHANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 8. SRI. GANGASHANAIAH, S/O LATE ANANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YERS, 9. SRI. SHANTHAKURNAR, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, 10. SRI. SHANAIAH @ KNTAIAH, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, 11. SMT. KAMALAMMA, W/O LATE GANHALAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 12. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, D/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25249 CRP No. 19 of 2025 13. SMT. VANAJAKSHAMMA, D/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 14. SRI. LAKSHMIKANTHA S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT SRIKANTAIAHANAPALYA, KEMBALALU POST, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK. 15. SMT. CHIKKAMMA, D/O LATE SHANAIAH @ HUCHALAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS'S 15(A). HANUMAMMA, D/O LATE CHIKKAMMA, AGED BOUT 46 YEARS, R/O GARAGADEKUPPE, KANAKUPPE VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK. 15(B). RAVISHA, S/O LATE CHIKKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O SRIKANTAIAHANA PALYA, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK. 15(C). JAYALAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE CHIKKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O GARAGADEKUPPE, KANAKUPPE VILLAGE, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25249 CRP No. 19 of 2025 HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK. 16. KAMALAMMA, W/O KARISHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT SRIKANTAIAHANA PALYA, KEMBALALU POST, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RANGAMANI S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH H.K, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B) AND R1(C); SRI. REVANNA BELLARY, ADVOCATE FOR R15(A) TO R15(C) AND R16)) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2024. PASSED ON IA IN OS NO. 121/2018 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the concerned Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25249 CRP No. 19 of 2025 rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the C.P.C., seeking rejection of the plaint. 2. Heard Sri. Umashankar L. and Sri. Muniraju, learnd counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Rangamani S., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1(b) and 1(c), Sri. Revanna Bellary, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.15(a) to 15(c) and 16 and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioners are the defendants, the first respondent, plaintiff. The plaintiffs institute a suit in O.S.No.121/2018 against the present petitioners - defendant Nos.15, 16 and 17 seeking partition, separate possession and consequential reliefs. Defendant Nos.4 to 14 in the said suit, filed the written statements. Defendant Nos.15 and 18 also file their written statements and a counterclaim. It transpires that a compromise is entered into in O.S.No.177/2010 on 20.03.2010 not between the present plaintiff and the petitioners, but between others. The present plaintiff was admittedly not a party to the said suit nor a party to the said compromise. The petitioners then prefer an application under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25249 CRP No. 19 of 2025 Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the C.P.C., seeking rejection of plaint. The present defendant No.18 files objections to the said application. Considering the application and the plaint averments, the application comes to be rejected. The rejection of the application is on the following reasons: "11. POINT No.1:- Admittedly the present suit is filed by the plaintiff for relief of partition and separate possession and defendant No.15 to 17 have filed this application on two grounds i.e.,one for want of cause of action and other barred by law under Order 23 rule 3A of the CPC. These defendants have contended that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 9 were no way concerned to the family of this defendants and at no point of time the grand-father of plaintiff Doddashane Gowda @ Doddashanaiah is the brother of grand-father of this defendants by name Krishnegowda. The G-tree produced by the plaintiff is concocted and false document which is not authenticated document. therefore this defendants contended that there is no cause of action to file this suit. 12. But this aspect cannot be determined while considering the IA under Order 7 Rule 11(A) of CPC,because the burden on proof of relationship on the plaintiff, therefore, the mere looking into the averments of the documents or application, the court cannot decide relationship between the parties. 13. Of course these defendant No.15 to 17 have denied the relationship i.e., the grand-father of plaintiff by name Doddashane Gowda @ Doddashanaiah is not brother of the grand-father of this defendant by name Krishnegowda. Therefore, to determine this relationship between the parties it is require cogent evidence. 14. Further this defendants have taken another contention in this application that the suit is barred in view of the bar under order 23 Rule 3 A of CPC. The defendant No.18 has taken contention in the counter - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25249 CRP No. 19 of 2025 claim to allot legitimate share in the schedule properties, but the schedule properties were already divided as per the compromise in Lokadalath on 20.03.2010 in O.S.No.177/2010. But to determined this aspect also it requires cogent evidence in addition to that this defendant No.18 is not claiming any share under the sharers of said O.S.No.177/2010 and she is claiming separate share independently. Therefore, this defendant No.18 cannot be directed to approach the very same court which passed the compromise decree under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. 15. The learned advocate for defendant No.15 to 17 relied upon a decision reported in AIR 2020 SC 2111 wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that 'No separate suit is maintainable challenging compromise decree was passed under Order 23 Rule 3 and consent decree operates as an estoppal and it is valid and binding unless it is set aside by the court which passed the consent decree'. In another decision reported in Vivil Appeal No.3486-3488/2022 in between K.Srinivasappa & ors Vs. M.Mallamma & ors wherein this Hon'ble Apex court has discussed about the 'compromise decree under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and bar of suit to question the compromise decree in separate suit'. Further in another decision reported held MSA No.100010/2021 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has discussed about 'bar of suit under Sec.9 of CPC and 23 Rule 3 A only remedy is to approached the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in Article 226 and 227 constitution of India to challenge the compromise decree and not separate suit is maintainable'. 16. The learned advocate for defendant No.18 also relied upon another decision reported in Civil Appeal No.7413/2023 in between Kumari Geetha Vs. Nanjundaswamy & ors. Hon'ble Apex court has discussed about rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 and also held that 'while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the plaint cannot be rejected in part and in part to continue against same persons'. and also in another decision in Civil Revison No.3324/2022 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Hariyana held that 'court is only to consider averments made in the plaint and not on the strength and weakness of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25249 CRP No. 19 of 2025 plaintiff's case. Further the plaint establishes the cause of action'. Therefore, the learned advocate for defendant No.18 has stated that while considering the applications under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the court has to look into the plaint averments. 17. But the learned advocate for defendant No.15 to 17 has submitted that there is a clear bar under Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC and aggrieved parties has to approach the very same court by filing application under Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC or the same has to challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka under Writ jurisdiction, but the separate suit is not maintainable. 18. However as discussed above this defendant No.18 is not a party to the said compromise decree. Moreover to consider the cause of action of plaintiff case as well as the claim raised by the defendant No.18, requires cogent evidence. Under such circumstances application filed by the defendant No.15 to 17 is not maintainable and no grounds were made out to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of CPC. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative. 19. Point No.2:- For the foregoing reasons discussed above, proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Interlocutory Application filed by defendant No.15 to 17 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of C.P.C. is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs." 4. The concerned Court observes that the matter is at the stage of evidence and the present defendant No.18 was not a party to the compromise decree arrived at between the parties therein in the year 2010 and also considers the fact that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25249 CRP No. 19 of 2025 there is already a partition between defendant Nos.15 to 18 and negatives it on the score that there cannot be an application seeking rejection of plaint in a partition suit. 5. I do not find any error apparent or perversity in the order so passed by the concerned Court for this Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction and obliterate the order passed by the concerned Court and allow the application, which would result in rejection of the plaint. 6. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. 7. All contentions of both the parties are permitted to be urged before the concerned Court at the appropriate stage. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41