- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49344 CRP No. 480 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 480 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. A.R. SARVAMANGALAMMA W/O LATE C GURUMALLAPPA AGED 76 YEARS 2. SRI. CHANDRA MOHAN G S/O LATE GURUMALLAPPA AGED 48 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO 12 MANSURYA LANE, OTC ROAD OPP TO DHARGA BANGALORE - 560 053 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VARUN SAGAR S/O T M DAYANAND SAGAR AGED 24 YEARS NO.92, O.P.S. ROAD CHICKPET TUMKUR - 572 101 2. PARASMAL AGED 78 YEARS S/O. DARJEE Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49344 CRP No. 480 of 2023 M/S MISRILAL BABULAL AND CO SHOP NO.3, MAMULPET BANGALORE - 560 053 3. SRI S G DASHWANTHKUMAR S/O GANESHMAL AGED 50 YEARS 4. SRI S.G. PRAVEENKUMAR S/O GANESHMAL AGED 42 YEARS AGED 50 YEARS R3 TO R4 ARE R/AT M.D. FASHIONS SHOP NO.3, 1ST, 3RD, 4TH FLOOR MAMULPET BANGALORE - 560 053 5. SMT VIJUDEVI W/O PEERCHAND AGED 67 YEARS NO.3, 2ND FLOOR M P OSWAL BUILDING MAMULPET BANGALORE - 560 053 6. SRI SHAMBA S/O ALTE HARI SHANKAR MISHRA AGED 42 YEARS SHOP NO.3, 4TH FLOOR MAMULPET BANGALORE - 560 053 7. SMT GEETHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O LATE C GURU MALLAPPA AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49344 CRP No. 480 of 2023 A R SARVAMANGALAMMA R/AT NO 12, MANSURIA LANE O T C ROAD OPP TO DHARGA BANGALORE - 560 053 8. SMT USHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D/O LATE C GURU MALLAPPA AND A R SARVAMANGALALAMMA R/AT NO 12 , MANSURIA LANE O T C ROAD, OPP TO DHARGA BANGALORE - 560 053 9. SMT PRABHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D/O LATE C GURU MALLAPA AND A R SARVAMANGALAMMA R/AT NO 12, MANSURIA LANE OTC ROAD, OPP TO DHARGA BANGALORE - 560 053 10. SMT SUDHA AGED 44 YEARS D/O LATE C GURU MALLAPAP AND A R SARVAMANGALAMMA R/AT NO 12 MANSURIA LANE, OTC ROAD OPP TO DHARGA BANGALORE - 560 053 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 VAKALATH NOT FILED VIDE ORDER DATED 31.08.2023 NOTICE TO R2 TO R10 IS DISPENSED WITH) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49344 CRP No. 480 of 2023 THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 PASSED ON I.A.No.13 IN OS No. 4037/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA No. 13 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 R/W SECTION 151 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 V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Sadashivaiah K.G., learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S. No.4037/2006 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application vide I.A. No.13 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under : - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49344 CRP No. 480 of 2023 3.1 A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff-first respondent with the following prayers in respect of following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). PRAYER Wherefore, the Plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree for partition of 1/2 share in the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 and 2 from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property in any manner against interest of the plaintiff and directly defendants 3 to 6 to deposit their monthly rent in the court till the disposal of the above suit and pass such other suitable orders that are deems fir to be passed in the circumstances of the case and to award cost of this suit in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.32, situated at Mamulpet, Bangalore-53, bounded on the : East by : Gubbi Thotadappa's land West by : Channashetty property, North by : Road South by : Maszid. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49344 CRP No. 480 of 2023 Measuring to an extent of East to West :15 Feet, and North to South : 40 Feet, with ground and five floors. 3.2 Plaintiff claimed that suit property belonged to Chikkapputtappa who died on 04.08.1933 leaving behind a minor son, who was 6 years old, namely G. Gurumallappa and his second wife Smt. G.S. Sarvamangalamma (plaintiff), who was aged 14 years as she was the only legally heir. 3.3 After the death of Chikkaputtaappa, there was a Panchayath in the family of the late Chikkputtappa on 13.08.1933 to 15.08.1933, in the presence of Basappa, who was the brother of Chikkaputtappa and Gubbi Soluru Manganna, father of the plaintiff and Panchayathdars namely Sri. Sharabanna, Sri. Bandyappa, Sri. Madappa, Sri. Veerapadrappa of Attibele Village and Sri. Gubbi Solur Thammaiah and Sri. Shivappa of Cottonpet, Bangalore. 3.4 In their presence, the property was divided and allotted the immovable properties left by and by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49344 CRP No. 480 of 2023 Chikkaputtappa and they have made arrangements for the maintenance of the minor son and minor wife by appointing Sri. Shivappa as the guardian. 3.5 Panchayath decision was signed by all the Panchayathdars, guardian of the minors and witnesses on 16.08.1933 and Panchayath decision was reduced into writing in four copies and signed and given to Sri. Sharabanna of Attibele Village, who was the guardian of Gurumallappa. 3.6 Plaintiff claimed that defendants are acting adversely to the interest of the plaintiff and therefore suit necessitated. 3.7 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants No.1 and 2 appeared before the Court and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. 3.8 Defendants also contended that there is yet another suit that was filed and which is now pending before this Court in the first appeal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49344 CRP No. 480 of 2023 3.9 Accordingly, defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation for want of cause of action and also on the ground of principle of resjudicata. 3.10 Learned Trial judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, dismissed the said application by impugned order. 4. Validity of the said order is called in question in this revision by the defendants no.1 and defendant no.2. 5. Sri. K.G. Sadashivaiah, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that per se suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of cause of action in view of the earlier suit besides the suit is hit by the principles of resjudicata and also on the ground of suit is barred by limitation. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49344 CRP No. 480 of 2023 6. As such the Trial Court dismissing the application seeking rejection of the plaint has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. None appears for the respondent. 8. In the light of the arguments put-forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the matter on record meticulously. 9. At the outset, all the three points which the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has raised before the Trial Court by way of filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are mixed question of law and facts. 10. The cause of action paragraph in the suit reads as under : "The cause of action for the above suit arose on 6.4.2006, when the Defendants 1 and 2 have sold the property of Cottonpet, belonging to the family of late Chikkaputtappa which the Plaintiff has got life interest - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49344 CRP No. 480 of 2023 without the consent within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. 11. The pendency of the first appeal did not come in the way of the plaintiff pursuing the present suit inasmuch as facts pleaded in the cause of action paragraph that has been referred to supra. 12. Further, principles of resjudicata would not apply to the case on hand in view of pendency of the appeal before this Court. 13. Likewise, question of limitation in the case on hand is mixed question of law and facts and cannot be decided at the threshold by the Trial Court as the period of limitation cannot be reduced by mathematical precision in the case on hand. 14. Accordingly, the rejection of the application is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49344 CRP No. 480 of 2023 15. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) However all the contentions that are available to the defendants No.1 and 2 are kept open to be urged in the trial in accordance with law and Trial Court shall consider the same uninfluenced by the impugned order. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 CT-SG