- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1021 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. J.A. JAYARAME GOWDA DEAD BY HIS LRS. M.R. ASHRAY, S/O M.V. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 2. SMT. M.R. ADARSHA D/O M.V. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NO.24, 1ST CROSS ROAD, GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT, NAGASHETTYHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 094. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANIL KUMAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. J. ASHOK KUMAR S/O J. JAYARAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.140, 1ST CROSS, BHOVI COLONY, C/O ASHWATHAPPA (CARPENTER), R.M.V. II STAGE, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 094. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. RAJESH A., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S. NO.8324/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S. No.8324/2019, challenging the order dated 03.02.2024 on the file of the VI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (for short, 'Trial Court'), wherein the application I.A.No.3 filed by the respondent/defendant under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint came to be allowed and culminated in dismissal of the suit by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the original plaintiff-J.A. Jayarame Gowda filed the instant suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs in respect of the suit - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 schedule immovable property. The said suit was contested by the respondent/defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff-J.A. Jayarame Gowda having expired on 26.04.2021, the present appellants, who are the grandchildren of said J.A. Jayarame Gowda came on record as his legal heirs based on the alleged Gift Deed dated 15.09.2018 and were permitted to prosecute the suit as legal representatives of the deceased J.A. Jayarame Gowda. Subsequently, the respondent/defendant filed the instant application IA.No.3, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that, even prior to the filing of suit, the said J.A. Jayarame Gowda had executed the alleged Gift Deed dated 15.09.2018 and consequently as on the date of filing of the suit, the said J.A. Jayarame Gowda did not have any subsisting right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property and the appellants, who claimed to be the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff were not entitled to prosecute and continue the suit and as such, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The said application I.A.No.3 having been opposed by the appellant/plaintiffs, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order, allowing I.A.No.3 and rejecting the plaint and consequently dismissing the suit by passing - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 the impugned judgment and decree, which is assailed in the present appeal. 3. Heard Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Anil Kumar R., learned counsel for the appellants; and Sri. G.V. Shashi Kumar and Sri. Rajesh A., learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of appeal and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, appearing for the appellants invited my attention to the averments made in the plaint in order to point out that the original plaintiff-J.A. Jayarame Gowda had categorically claimed that, he was in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and in the light of the well settled principle of law that, it is only the plaint averments and documents produced along with the plaint which can be looked into for the purpose of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, merely because the appellants subsequently were brought on record as legal representatives of the original plaintiff-J.A. Jayarame Gowda and had acquired the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 suit schedule property by virtue of the aforesaid Gift Deed dated 15.09.2018, the plaint filed by the original plaintiff cannot be rejected. It is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the application filed by the present appellants to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 28.09.2021, which had attained finality and the said order having not been challenged, the question of rejecting the original plaint filed by the original plaintiff under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and as such, the impugned order, rejecting the plaint deserves to be set-aside. It is also submitted that the question as to whether the said J.A. Jayarame Gowda continued in possession of the suit schedule property even after execution of the Gift Deed and whether the present appellants who have already been brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff would be entitled to prosecute the suit as well as the issue as to whether the suit is maintainable or not would necessarily involve disputed questions of fact, which would be adjudicated only after a full fledged trial and can not be considered at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 and as such, the impugned order and impugned judgment and decree, deserves to be set-aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that, in the light of the alleged Gift Deed dated 15.09.2018 said to have been executed by the deceased J.A. Jayarame Gowda in favour of the present appellants, the said J.A. Jayarame Gowda did not have locus to institute the suit and as such, Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the plaint on the basis of the alleged Gift Deed dated 15.09.2018 by passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent/defendant would dispute the alleged possession of both J.A. Jayarame Gowda as well as the present appellants over the suit schedule property and on this ground also, the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action either for J.A. Jayarame Gowda or the appellants herein to file and prosecute/continue the suit. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only point - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 that arise for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint. 7. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court come to the conclusion that the cause of action for the suit was based on the alleged interference and the said J.A. Jayarame Gowda having executed the alleged Gift Deed dated 15.09.2018 and having expired, the plaint does not survive any longer and was liable to be rejected. 8. In this context, it is necessary to state that, it is well settled law that, it is only the plaint averments and documents produced along with the plaint that would be relevant / germane for the purpose of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the instant case, while rejecting the plaint, the Trial Court, surprisingly does not refer to or advert to the plaint averments, which reads as under: "2. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff and the defendant are father and son and the plaintiff is the senior citizen. In fact the plaintiff had a son and a daughter namely the defendant herein and J.Sowbhagya. After marriage the daughter of the plaintiff J.Sowbhagya was passed away in the year 2003. As such after her death her estate was succeeded by her husband M.V.Rajanna, son M.R.Ashray and daughter M.R.Adharsha. Prior - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 to 2014 the plaintiff, the defendant and the legal heirs of deceased J. Sowbhagya were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the residential and commercial property bearing No.43. Khatha No.21/3, consisting of two asbesto sheet houses And one shop with all civic, amenities measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 36 feet situated at Nagashettihalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru which is morefully described in schedule hereunder herein after called as the schedule property and other two residential properties bearing Site No.42A, Khatha No.21/3 and another property bearing No.43A, Khatha No.21/3 all are situated at Nagashettihalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. 3. The plaintiff submits that due to differences arose in and among the family members of the plaintiff, the defendant and the legal heirs of deceased J.Sowbhagya. The aforesaid her legal heirs of deceased J.Sowbhagya namely the husband M.V.Rajanna, son M.R.Ashray and daughter M.R.Adharsha have filed in suit in O.S.No.5505/2014 on the file of this Hon'ble Court (CCH-26) for the relief of partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in the schedule property and other aforesaid two properties against both the plaintiff and the defendant herein. Later on at the intervention of friends and relatives the matter was settled amicably in and among the plaintiff, defendant and the legal heirs of Late. J.Sowbhagya. Accordingly the plaintiff herein and the legal heirs of deceased J.Sowbhagya have filed compromise petition in the aforesaid suit. Accordingly the said suit was came to be decree under the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2015. Subsequently the said finally decree was registered in the sub register office, Gandhi Nagar (Hebbala), Bengaluru. Under the said compromise decree the suit schedule property was fell to the share of the plaintiff and other aforesaid two properties were fell to the share of the defendant herein and the legal heirs of Late. J. Sowbhagya the daughter of the plaintiff respectively. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 Subsequently in terms of the aforesaid final decree both the plaintiff, the defendant and the legal heirs of deceased J.Sowbhagya have been separately in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. 4. The plaintiff submits that in pursuant of the aforesaid final decree the BBMP records pertaining to the schedule property were transferred in the name of plaintiff and he used to pay the requisite tax payable in respect of the schedule property. As such the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. 5. The plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property is consisting of two asbesto sheet houses and one shop premises. After the death his wife the plaintiff has alone residing in one portion, another one portion and the shop premises was let out in favour of tenants. Out of the said rent the plaintiff is leading his life. On the contrary the defendant who is only son of the plaintiff did not take care of his father the plaintiff herein. Under the said circumstances with the help and assistance of legal heirs of his deceased daughter as stated above leading his life by residing in one portion of the schedule property. As such the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. 6. The plaintiff submits that as stated above after partition the defendant has no any manner of right, title and 6 interest over the schedule property. However on 04.09.2019 in order to grab the schedule property from the plaintiff, the defendant has tried to dispossess him from the schedule property and further posed the life threat to both the plaintiff and his tenants. As such in his attempt the defendant has also assaulted the plaintiff without consideration of his old age and relationship in between them. Under the said circumstances with the help of his grandchildren - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 and son-in-law the plaintiff has lodged the complaint dated: 05.09.2019 with Sanjaya Nagar Police Station. As such on his complaint the police people have summoned warned the defendant that not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property. However inspite of the same the defendant repeatedly interfering and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property. Thereupon on 05.11.2019 once again the defendant tried to interfere with possession of the plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff once again has tried to lodge the complaint with the Sanjaya Nagara Police. Since the matter is civil in nature the police people have refused to interfere and further directed the plaintiff to approach competent civil court for redressal. 7. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is aged about 80 years and senior citizen. As such due to his advanced age he is unable resist the highhandedness of the defenst without assistance of this Hon'ble court as the defendant very powerful person in the locality having money band rowdy elements in his hand. Under the said circumstances without there being other option the plaintiff files the suit for permanent injunction. 8. The cause of action for the suit arose on 05.09.2019 and 05.11.2019 as and when the defendant and his 8. henchmen tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and well within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court. 9. No other suit or proceedings are pending in between the parties to this suit on the same cause of action in any other court. 10. The suit is valued as per valuation slip annexed to this plaint. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 WHEREFORE, the plaintiff pray for judgment and decree by way of permanent injunction there by: a) Restraining the defendant, his agents, followers, henchmen and persons claiming under him from interfering in any manner with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems to fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity and law. SCHEDULE All that part and parcel of the property bearing No. 43, Khatha No.21/3, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 36 feet consisting of two asbesto sheet houses and one shop with all civic amenities, situated at Nagashettihalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk bounded on: East By : Site No.43A. West by : Site No.42A belongs to the defendant, North By: Property belongs to Devaraj, South By Road." 9. As is clear from the plaint averments and the documents produced along with the plaint by the original plaintiff- J.A. Jayarame Gowda, it is his specific contention that, he was in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and that since, the respondent/defendant was illegally and high handedly interfering - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the original plaintiff was constrained to file the instant suit. 10. Under these circumstances, having regard to the plaint averments and the documents produced by the original plaintiff- J.A. Jayarame Gowda, which are seriously disputed by the respondent/defendant, I am of the considered opinion that, it cannot be said that the original plaintiff-J.A. Jayarame Gowda did not have any cause of action to institute the original suit especially when the claim of the said J.A. Jayarame Gowda is disputed by the respondent/defendant thereby requiring adjudication only after a full fledged trial. It is a well settled principle of law that the subsequent event of demise of the original plaintiff that has transpired during the pendency of the suit would not entail rejection of the original plaint which was otherwise not liable to be rejected particularly when the order passed by the Trial Court dated 28.09.2021, allowing the LR application of the present appellants and permitting them to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff had attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondent/defendant. In this regard, it is necessary to state that, all rival contentions between - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 the parties including the various defences urged by the respondent/defendant would require a full fledged trial and the same cannot be gone into at the stage of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is needless to state that, any observation made in the present appeal is limited / restricted to the disposal of the present appeal. All rival contentions between the parties on all aspects of the matter including the alleged Gift Deed are kept open to be decided by the Trial Court and no opinion is expressed on the same and as such, it is clear that the Trial Court fell in error in passing the impugned order, which is contrary to law and facts warranting interference in the present appeal. 11. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R 1. Regular First Appeal is hereby allowed; 2. Impugned order dated 03.02.2024 passed on application I.A. No.3 filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure in Original Suit No.8324/2019 on the file of the VI Addl. City - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15129 RFA No. 1021 of 2024 Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City is hereby set-aside; 3. Application IA No.3 filed by the defendant under order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure is disposed of by directing all rival contentions in this regard to be decided after a full fledged Trial; 4. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before the end of December-2025. 5. All rival contentions between the parties including the gift deed, maintainability of suit etc., are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1