- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2906 CRP No. 290 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 290 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. A. KRISHNAVENI W/O LATE. VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 2. SRI. K.V. PRASHANTH S/O LATE. VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 3. SRI. K.V. SRIKANTH S/O LATE. VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. THE DEFEDANT NO. 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.121/Y, 16TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRI K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A.N. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA D/O LATE. ACHEPALLI NARAYANAPPA, W/O P. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 2. SUBBAMMA D/O LATE. ACHEPALLI NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2906 CRP No. 290 of 2017 3. RATHNAMMA D/O ACHEPALLI NARAYANAPPA, W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. R/AT VARLAKONDA VILLAGE, GUDIBANDE TALUK. 4. A.N. VENKATESH S/O LATE. ACHEPALLI NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. THE PLAINTIFF NO. 1, 2 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.496/1, AEO OFFICE ROAD, KANDAVARABAGILU, CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPUR – 562 101. 5. HARISHANKAR S/O LATE. VENKATAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT GANDHINAGAR SOCIETY, SIDLAGHATTA – 562 105. 6. NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE. NARAYANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.496/1, OLD AEO OFFICE ROAD, KANDAVARBAGILU, CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN – 562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R5 SERVED – UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.04.2023, NOTICE TO R6 IS H/S) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED; 11.07.2017 PASSED ON IA.NO.2 IN OS.NO.238/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE Ist ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE IA NO.2 FILED - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2906 CRP No. 290 of 2017 UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., PRAYING TO REJECTING THE PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioners, who are defendants No.1 to 3 in the suit in O.S.No.238/2016, are before this Court aggrieved of the rejection of their application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The suit is filed by the grand children of Late.Dodda Muniyappa, the prepositus seeking partition and equitable 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 contending that there is no cause of action for the suit. It is sought to be contended that the plaintiffs are admittedly, the children of the daughter of Sri.Dodda Muniyappa, who is said to have passed away in the year 1952, and the mother of the plaintiffs-Smt.Narayanamma - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2906 CRP No. 290 of 2017 also passed away somewhere during 1960s. It was therefore sought to be contended that the plaintiffs will get a right over the suit schedule properties only if their mother had a rights in the suit schedule properties and therefore, there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to have filed the suit. The application has been rejected by the learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkaballapura. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMISETTY VENKATANNA AND ANOTHER VS. NASYAM JAMAL SAHEB AND OTHERS, reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 521. It is pointed out from the said judgment that the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the plaintiff had not challenged the Partition Deed dated 11.03.1953 and the subsequent Gift Deed dated 24.01.1968 and the suits were initiated with a prayer for declaring the title of the plaintiffs; for relief of cancellation of the two registered Sale Deeds and for a declaration that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2906 CRP No. 290 of 2017 the registered Partition Deed and Gift Deed were void documents. 4. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of SIVANANDA ROY VS JANAKI BALLAV PATTNAIK AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 1985 ORISSA 197; where it was held that provision under Order VI Rule 2 of CPC, requires that every pleading shall contain a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. It was held that on a conjoint reading of Order VI Rule 2 and Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., it is clear that the words "material facts" occurring in Order VI, Rule 2, C.P.C., with reference to a plaintiff means the facts necessary to form a complete cause of action. It was held that the language in the provision makes it imperative that the facts constituting the cause of action must find place in the plaint. It was therefore concluded that if a plaint does not conform to the aforesaid requirement it can be held - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2906 CRP No. 290 of 2017 that the plaint does not disclose cause of action within the meaning of Order VII, Rule 11(a) C.P.C. 5. Reliance is also sought to be placed on a decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of RADHABAI BALASEHEB SHIRKE VS. KESHAV RAMACHANDRA JADHAV AND OTHERS, IN SECOND APPEAL, 593 OF 1987 AND CONNECTED MATTERS. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submit that the Trial Court has considered all such contentions and has rightly held that the complete reading of the plaint discloses cause of action and therefore, the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 cannot be allowed. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondents and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the contention of the defendants is that the plaint does not disclose the date of death of Sri.Dodda Muniyappa and it - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2906 CRP No. 290 of 2017 does not disclose the date of death of plaintiffs’ mother- Smt.Narayanamma. In other words, it is contended that if the date of death of the propositus and the plaintiffs’ mother was disclosed in the plaint, the court could easily come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have no right over the suit schedule properties. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in a suit for partition, the plaintiffs are required to contend that they have a right over the suit schedule properties having regard to the relationship of the plaintiffs with the propositus of the suit schedule properties and that when the plaintiffs sought for a share, the same has been denied. 8. It is also true that if the plaintiffs are aware of a prior partition, they are required to plead that in the plaint that there was such a partition. Despite such prior partition, if there is any statement that is made in the plaint to show that such a partition is not binding on the plaintiffs, it would again be sufficient cause to consider the case of the plaintiffs. The contentions sought to be raised - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2906 CRP No. 290 of 2017 by the defendants at this stage would touch upon the merits of the matter, which can be considered only after evidence is led by the parties before the court. Therefore, this Court does not see any infirmity in the impugned order. The said decisions sought to be relied upon by the petitioners do not touch upon the situation under which the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs. 9. In the case of RAMISETTY VENKATANNA (supra), a suit was filed by some of the grand children although their parent was party to a prior partition. After partition, the properties fallen to the share of the defendants were sold in favour of the third party. It was thereafter such a suit was filed, therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court come to a conclusion that without challenging the Partition Deed and subsequent Gift Deed, the plaintiffs have initiated the suit with the aforesaid prayers, which were not maintainable and it was only due to clever drafting that the suit was filed at the hands of the plaintiffs. That is not the fact obtained in the present suit. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2906 CRP No. 290 of 2017 10. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. 11. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT:PH