IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1108 OF 2025 (PAR-DEC) BETWEEN: SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE THORE SALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT. YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. SRIVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE AGADOORAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 2 . SRI. SATHYANARAYANA S/O LATE EERAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3 . SRI. RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE EERAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 4 . SMT. SARASWATHI D/O LATE EERAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS - 2 5 . SRI. NAGARAJA S/O LATE EERAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 6 . SMT. ANITHA D/O LATE EERAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 7 . SMT. DEVEERAMMA D/O LATE AGADOORAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 8 . SRI. NAGAPPA S/O LATE AGADOORAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 9 . SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE AGADOORAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 10 . SMT. MAHALAKSHMI D/O. LATE THORE SALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 11 . SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE THORE SALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106 12 . SRI. V.S. RAJESH S/O V.R. SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT No.167/78, 43RD CROSS 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 082 13 . SRI. V.R. SREENIVASA MURTHY S/O V.R. RAJAGOPAL SETTY - 3 AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT No.167/78, 43RD CROSS 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 082 14 . SRI. S. BHASKAR S/O V. SATHYANARAYABA SETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT No.51, ASHOK MAHAL MIDDLE SCHOOL ROAD VISHVESHWARAPURAM BENGALURU-560 004 15 . SRI. ASHOK KUMAR S/O V. SATHYANARAYABA SETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT No.51, ASHOK MAHAL MIDDLE SCHOOL ROAD VISHVESHWARAPURAM BENGALURU-560 004 16 . SMT. D.M. KALPANA W/O D.N. MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT No.2, "BHARANI" NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL ROAD VISHVESHWARAPURAM BENGALURU-560 004 17 . SRI. D.N. MALLIKARJUNA S/O D. NARAYANASETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT No.2, "BHARANI" NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL ROAD VISHVESHWARAPURAM BENGALURU-560 004 18 . SRI. S.P. SREENIVASAN S/O S.V. PRAMANANDAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT No.6/7, EAST CIRCLE ROAD VISHVESHWARAPURAM BENGALURU-560 004 - 4 19 . SRI. S.P. BALAJI S/O S.V. PRAMANANDAM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT No.6/7, EAST CIRCLE ROAD VISHVESHWARAPURAM BENGALURU-560 004 20 . SRI. M. PRABHAKAR GUPTA S/O M. JAGADEESHWAR GUPTA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT No.25, SUNKENAHALLI BULL TEMPLE ROAD BENGALURU-560 019 21 . SRI. S.P. JAGADEESH PRASAD S/O M.S. PALANICHAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT No.23/36, SURVEYOR STREET BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 22 . SRI. B.N. NANDA KUMAR S/O B.R. NARAYANA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT. 126/31, 16TH MAIN BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE BENGALURU-560 050 23 . SRI. K. NANDA KUMAR S/O V. KRISHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT. RAVIKUMAR TRADING CO. 3RD MAIN, APMC YARD YESHWANTHAPURA BENGALURU-560 022 24 . SRI. S.G.C. ARADHYA S/O S.G. GUBBIAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT. No.369, ANUPAM, 18TH CROSS 1ST STAGE, BEML LAYOUT BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 079 - 5 25 . SRI. N.M. VENKATESH S/O N.A. MUNIRAJU SETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. No.22, PUTTANNA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 26 . SRI. D. RAGHU S/O LATE R. DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS No.67, 2ND CROSS, LAKSHMINAGAR KIRLOSKAR COLONY, 3RD STAGE BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 079 27 . SRI. C. THIMMAREDDY S/O CHIKKA ABBAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 28 . SRI. K.V. VENKATASWAMY REDDY S/O YELLAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. KUDLU VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 29 . SRI. NAGAPPA REDDY S/O LATE A.G. MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT. AREHALLI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 30 . SRI. MANJUNATH REDDY S/O LATE A.G. MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT. AREHALLI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS - 6 (BY SRI. B.S. RAGHUPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R14 TO R17, R27 & R28; V.C.O. DATED 17.06.2025, NOTICE TO R1 TO R13, R18 TO R26, R29 & R30 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A.No.3 IN O.S.No.88/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, ALLOWING THE I.A.No.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a), (c) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 20.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 7 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Regular First Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.3 dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal in O.S.No.88/2018 ('trial Court' for short), rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ('CPC' for short). 2. We have heard Shri. S. Srivatsa, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. S Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. B.S Raghuprasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.14 to 17, 27 and 28. 3. The suit was filed seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule property land bearing Sy.No.28 measuring to an extent of 7 acres 14 guntas situated at Yadavanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The plaintiff contended that Agadoorappa and his wife Sakamma had six children. The plaintiff is the son of Thore Sallappa, the eldest of Agadoorappa and Sakamma. It was contended that defendants No.1 to 11 and the plaintiff constitute an - 8 Undivided Hindu Family and that the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share out of 1/6th share in suit schedule property and to declare that the sale deeds dated 21.09.1992, 06.02.1995 (8 in number), 13.12.1995 (2 in number) and 02.02.2005 (4 in number) are null and void. 4. The defendants No. 14 to 17, 27 and 28 filed their written statement denying the suit averments and contending that the suit is not maintainable. It was specifically contended that there was already a partition between the six children of the original propositus Agadoorappa by way of compromise decree in O.S.No.244/1990 and that the said decree was suppressed by the plaintiff. 5. An application for rejection of the plaint was also filed by defendants No.14 to 17, 27 and 28 under Order VII Rule 11(a),(c) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC. The trial Court after considering the contentions advanced found that the plaintiff was claiming that his father is entitled to 1/6th share out of the 7 acres 14 guntas of land which he - 9 alleged was Joint Family Property. However, it was noticed that in O.S.No.244/1990, a compromise decree was passed by which 'B' schedule property measuring 1 acre 10 guntas was allotted towards the share of Thore Sallappa, father of the plaintiff. It was found that filing the present suit with respect to entire 7 acres and 14 guntas of land as against all the six children of Agadoorappa and by impleading all the subsequent purchasers and challenging more than 15 sale deeds executed by the other children of Agadoorappa is an abuse of process of Court. 6. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another reported in 1977 (4) SCC 467, the trial Court held that a frivolous and vexatious suit cannot be entertained by the Court. The application under Order VII Rule 11(a), (c) and (d) of the CPC filed by defendants No.14 to 17, 27 and 28 was therefore allowed and the plaint was rejected. 7. The learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that it was taking into account the averments in the written statement filed by the defendants that the plaint - 10 came to be rejected and that the order is clearly illegal. It is further contended since the application for amendment was already filed before the orders were passed on the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (c) of CPC, the rejection of the plaint was per se impermissible. 8. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Suchitra Dubey (SMT) v. Sattar and Ors reported in ILR 2023 M.P. 2100 and the Delhi High Court in the case of Mrs. Anita Kumari Gupta v. Late Mr. Ved Bhushan (Deceased Thr. Lrs) and Ors reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2895. 9. The learned counsel appearing for respondents No.14 to 17, 27 and 28, on the other hand, contended that the filing of an application for amendment could not have made any difference since it was clear that the appellant had suppressed the factum of the compromise decree and had filed a suit which was per se not maintainable and barred by limitation. - 11 10. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the following decisions:- • M.S. Jagadeesh and Others v. B.J. Jayasanthosh dated 14.08.2024 in RFA No.460/2017; • Smt. Uma Devi and Ors. v. Shri. Anand Kumar and Ors. dated 02.04.2025 in SLP(Civil)2032/2025; • Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 877; • Vijayanand S/o. Venkatesh Kelagadi v. Parikashith S/o. Vijayanand Kelagadi and Others reported in 2023 (2) Kar. L.R. 89 (DB); • Smt. Mallamma and Others v. Shri. Mallegowda @ Karigowda and Others reported in ILR 2022 KAR 992; • K.C. Leelavathi v. Ramanjanamma reported in AIR 2023 (4) AKR 423; • Rangahanumaiah and Others v. Devaraju and Others reported in 2023 (3) Kar.L.R. 89; • Smt. Shakuntala and Others v. Basavaraj and Others reported in ILR 2016 KAR 3604; • Ramisetty Venkatanna and Anr. v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2717/2023 dated 28.04.2023; • Suresh Kumar Dagla v. Sarwan and Another reported in (2014) 14 SCC 254; • Khatri Hotels Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another reported in (2011) 9 SCC 126; - 12 • Bhargavi Constructions and Another v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Others reported in (2018) 13 SCC 480; • Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through LRs. and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366; • T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another reported in AIR 1977 SCC 2421; and • Sayyad Ayaz Ali v. Prakash G. Goyal and others reported in (2021) 7 SCC 456. 11. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the plaint averments was that Agadoorappa got the property through grant and that the defendants No.12 to 30 obtained illegal sale deeds and that the demand for partition was not heeded. The Sale Deeds were produced along with the plaint. A reading of the Sale Deeds would clearly show that there is a clear recital that one of the sons of Agadoorappa i.e., Erappa filed a suit in O.S.No.244/1990 on the file of Munsiff & JMFC, Anekal seeking partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share of the property and that the sons of Agadoorappa had settled the dispute among themselves and a compromise petition was filed before the Court with each of the sons of Agadoorappa taking property - 13 measuring 1 acre and 10 guntas with 1 acre and 9 guntas allotted to Narayanappa. Thus, as per the plaint documents itself, it was an admitted fact that partition had taken place and that various extents of the properties had been sold by the children of Agadoorappa. It is pertinent to note that the appellant's father Thore Sallappa was a party to some of the Sale Deeds which were challenged before the trial Court. The trial Court had considered the contentions advanced on either side and had specifically found that the plaint averments, taken as a whole, would lead to the conclusion that the suit itself was not maintainable. It was also found that the suit was barred by limitation. 12. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the clear averments in the plaint and the findings of the trial Court, we are of the opinion that the contentions raised in this appeal that the rejection of the plaint was on the basis of the materials pleaded in the written statement or the materials placed on record by the defendants cannot be accepted. The plaint averments clearly stated that the suit schedule property had been converted for non- - 14 agricultural purposes by an order dated 01.02.1995. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff, on verification of revenue and encumbrance records found that more than 15 registered sale deeds had been executed by the members of the family. The defendants filed Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC and produced the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.244/1990 and the plaintiff filed I.A.No.4 under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint seeking relief of declaration that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.244/1990 is not binding on him. 13. We notice that the suit was filed seeking partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in 1/6th share of 7 acres and 41 guntas of the property on the allegation that the plaintiff and the defendants constituted a Hindu Undivided Family and that the sale deeds had been executed by the defendants without the knowledge of the plaintiff. The trial Court had considered the contentions advanced and had found that the suit would not be maintainable, in view of the fact that registered sale deeds were admittedly executed from 1990 onwards. During the pendency of the IA filed by - 15 the defendants for rejection of the plaint, the plaintiff had filed an IA seeking a declaration that the compromise decree in O.S.No.244/1990 is not binding on him. It is therefore clear that the factum of existence of the compromise decree was admitted by the plaintiff. If that be so, the contention of the appellant that the IA for amendment should have been considered first and that the plaint could not have been rejected, cannot be accepted under any circumstances. The finding of the trial Court is that there was a compromise decree and on the face of the same, the suit was not maintainable. 14. The decisions in Suchitra Dubey's case (supra), is relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellant to contend that the application made for amendment ought to have been considered first and that the rejection of the plaint was not proper. However, the Apex Court in Sayyad Ayaz Ali's case (supra), clearly held that when a plaint is barred by law, the Court cannot allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint to cure the defect. That case arose because the plaintiff admitted the existence of registered sale deeds but - 16 failed to seek their cancellation or a declaration of invalidity, which was mandatory under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The trial Court had initially rejected the plaint while, at the same time, granting liberty to amend it, but the High Court set aside that liberty, holding that rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is absolute. The Apex Court affirmed the judgment holding that when a plaint, on its face, does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law, no amendment can rescue it and it must be rejected outright. 15. In the instant case as well, the Sale Deeds produced along with the plaint would show that a suit was filed as O.S.No.244/1990 on the file of Munsiff & JMFC, Anekal seeking partition and separate possession by one Agadoorappa s/o. Erappa and that the said suit has been compromised. The plaintiff's father Thore Sallappa was also a signatory to the compromise. In the suit, there was no disclosure of the compromise and no relief sought as regards the same. Therefore, even in case the plaintiff had any contentions with regard to the said compromise, it could not have been raised in the present suit by amending the plaint. - 17 16. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the contentions raised in the appeal are not sustainable. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE cp*