- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40907 CRP No. 656 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 656 OF 2018 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ARAVINDAKSHAN.V.K AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS SON OF LATE V S KELAN, 2. SMT SREEDEVI ARVINDA W/O ARAVINDKSHAN V K AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS BOTH PETITIONERS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.202, PALMGROVE NOOK APARTMENTS, NO.35, PALMGROVE ROAD, A & B BLOCK, AUSTIN TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 047 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RANJAN KUMAR K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI P NAGARAJA S/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO 23, 1ST CROSS, SRINIVAGILU VILLAGE, PAYAPPA BLOCK, VIVEKNAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 047 2. SRI THAYAPPA S/O LATE ARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40907 CRP No. 656 of 2018 R/AT NO.25, 20TH CROSS, NEAR BHAJANE MANE, EJIPURA, VIVEKNAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 047 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MUKUNDAN.R FOR SRI T.K.RAJAGOPALA, ADVOCATES) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2018 PASSED ON IA.NO.4 IN O.S.No.4925/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE IA.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Ranjan Kumar K., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Mukundan R., appearing on behalf of Sri T.K. Rajagopala, counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Defendants in O.S.No.4925/2017 are the petitioners in this revision petition challenging the rejection of their application filed vide I.A.No.IV, under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC, on the file of XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 16). 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40907 CRP No. 656 of 2018 A suit for permanent injunction came to be filed in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’) in O.S.No.4925/2017: “SCHEDULE-A All that piece and parcel of the portion of land in Sy.No.31 situated at Ejipura Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore now coming under the limits of BBMP Ward No.148,(Old BMP No.68), measuring 17 guntas and bound as follows: East by : Kathalipalya Munivenkatappa land(Now Road) West by : Drain North by: Remaining portion of same Sy.No.31 South by: Remaining portion of same Sy.No. 31(Now Road) SCHEDULE-B All that piece and parcel of the portion of land in Sy.No.31 situated at Ejipura, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore now coming under the limits of BBMP ward No.148 (Old BMP No.698) measuring 7 guntas of land or East to West:130’ feet and North to South:60’ feet totally measuring 7800. Sq.feet, Consisting of ACC sheet roofed structure thereon measuring 10'ft X 40' ft and 10'ft X 25'ft cow shed thereon and bound as follows: East by : Road West by : Private Property. North by : Remaining Portion of same Sy.No.31 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40907 CRP No. 656 of 2018 South by: Road, Sri Rama Temple Main Road” 4. Plaintiffs claim that suit property originally belonged to Muniyellappa @ Motappa, having purchased the same from Smt. Narayanamma, W/o Lakshmaiah @ Papaiah, vide registered sale deed dated 24.09.1962. Muniyellappa @ Motappa having died intestate left behind his wife Hemakka and his children, Chinnapullay, Chinnaswamy and Krishnappa as the legal representatives. 5. Hemakka and Krishnappa predeceased Chinnapullay and Chinnaswamy, the other legal representatives. As such, Chinnapullay and Chinnaswamy succeeded to the suit property as class-I legal heirs of late Muniyellappa @ Motappa. 6. It is further case of the plaintiffs that Chinnapullay has leased out about 7 guntas of land out of 17 guntas, described in the ‘B’ schedule, vide lease deed dated 18.04.2005 to the plaintiffs jointly. As such, plaintiffs are the joint lessees in respect of ‘B’ schedule property under Chinnapullay. 7. Defendants without there being any right started interfering with the suit property. Therefore, suit came to be filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40907 CRP No. 656 of 2018 defendants and their agents from interfering with the peaceful possession over of the suit ‘B’ schedule property. 8. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto. 9. The defendants also contended that they are the owners of the suit property, having purchased the same from Muniyellappa @ Motappa. 10. In other words, there is a contra title that has been set up by the defendants. 11. Defendants also filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that plaint is to be rejected. The same was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing detailed written objections. 12. Learned trial Judge after hearing the parties rejected the application filed by the defendants. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court in this revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40907 CRP No. 656 of 2018 14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that when there is a sale deed executed by Muniyellappa in favour of the defendants, Chinnapullay, being the legal representatives of Muniyellappa executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs is per se untenable and sought for allowing the revision petition. 15. Per contra, Sri Mukundan, learned counsel representing the counsel for respondent Sri T.K. Rajagopala supports the impugned order. 16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 17. On such perusal, it is crystal clear that there is a lease deed by which plaintiffs are claiming the possession over the ‘B’ schedule property. 18. Whereas, defendants have come with the plea that they are the owners of the suit property having registered sale deed from Muniyellappa. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40907 CRP No. 656 of 2018 19. These disputed questions of fact cannot be decided while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Triable issues arise in the suit from the rival pleadings. 20. Thus, rejection of the application by the trial Judge which is impugned in the present revision petition cannot be faulted with. 21. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) However, defendants are at liberty to canvass all the favourable points in the suit and are also entitled to establish their title by filing appropriate comprehensive suit, if so desired. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR