- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51616 CRP No. 663 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 663 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M S LONAKATH S/O LATE M R SUBBARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RA/T DEVAIAH PARK SRIRAMAPURA RAJAJINAGARA BENGALURU- 560010 2. SRI M S HEMANTHAKUMAR S/O LATE M R SUBBARANAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RA/T NO 10, JP NAGAR BENGALURU- 560078 3. SRI M S HEMACHANDRA S/O LATE M R SUBBARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.352-7/1, GROUND FLOOR 10TH C MAIN, 2ND CROSS 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU- 560011 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SATHYA NARAYAN V K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT M S MAHALAKSHMI D/O LATE M R SUBBARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51616 CRP No. 663 of 2023 2. SMT. S.SANDHYA W/O LATE M.S.BALACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO 352-7/1 1ST FLOOR, 10TH C MAIN 2ND CROSS, 1ST BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560011 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHANRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.1849/2022 ON THE FILE OF XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA NO.2 FIELD UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF R/W SEC.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 Heard Sri.Sathya Narayan V. K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Mohanraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Lourdu Mariyappa A., learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Revision petition is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.1849/2022 challenging the dismissal of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51616 CRP No. 663 of 2023 application vide I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short). 3. Gist of the case for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs with the following prayer and in respect of following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’): PRAYER “Wherefore, the plaintiffs most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree: 1. Directing the defendants No.1 to 3 to effect the legal partition and separate possession of the 1/5th share to each in the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs by metes and bounds. 2. Directing the defendants No.1 to 3 to deposit the monthly income derived from the schedule properties and rents in respect of the schedule property before this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of this suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51616 CRP No. 663 of 2023 3. Directing the defendants and their agents, henchmen, servants or the people claiming under or through them to not to interfere with the plaintiffs 1/5th legitimate share each in the schedule property in any manner by way of permanent injunction. 4. Grant such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case with cost in the interest of justice and equity.” SCHEDULE PROPERTY All the piece and parcel of the house property bearing no.7/1 (352) PID No.62-127-7/1 situated in 10th C main road, 1st Block, 2nd cross, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011 measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 37.5 feet of land with ground, first and second floored RCC roofed residential building and bounded on: East by: 10th C main road West by: property No.7/2 North by: property No.7 South by: 2nd cross road - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51616 CRP No. 663 of 2023 3.2. Relationship of the parties is mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the plaint which reads as under: The plaintiff No.1 is the only daughter of Late M.R.Subbarangaiah. the genealogical tree of Late and Smt.Thoyejakshi is mentioned hereunder: M.R.Subbarangaiah and Smt.Thoyejakshi 1. M.S.Lokanath 2. M.S.Hemanth Kumar 3. M.S.Balachandra (since dead) – his wife – Smt.S.Sandhya 4. M.S. Shashikumar (since dead)- no legal heirs. 5. M.S.Mahalkshmi (children) (a) H.S.Deepak Shankar (b) H.S.Abhijith Shankar 6. M. S. Hemachandra 3.3. Plaintiffs claim that they are having the right in the suit property whereas defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied the said claim on the basis of the Will executed by M.R.Subbarangaiah that they are absolute owners. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51616 CRP No. 663 of 2023 4. The same is called in question by the plaintiffs stating that M.R.Subbarangaiah had no competency in executing the Will and therefore, application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC needs to be rejected. 5. Learned Trial Judge noting that the suit is one for partition and whether M.R.Subbarangaiah had the power to execute the Will in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 are all triable issues to be decided in the suit and thus, rejected the application. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court, in this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the suit property was a self acquired property of M.R.Subbarangaiah. Therefore, he had every right to execute the Will in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 which has been ignored by the learned Trial Judge and therefore, very suit of the plaintiffs seeking - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51616 CRP No. 663 of 2023 1/5th share in the suit property was per se not maintainable as it is the self acquired property of M.R.Subbarangaiah and hence, plaint ought to have been rejected. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, the core issue that is to be decided in the suit is whether the suit property is the self acquired property of M.R.Subbarangaiah and therefore, he had every right to execute the Will in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 or not. The said issue cannot be decided at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by holding a mini trial. Moreover, proof of Will has to be established by defendant Nos.1 to 3. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51616 CRP No. 663 of 2023 11. Thus, matter requires consideration to thrash out the core issue and therefore, rejection of the application filed by the defendants is just and proper which requires no interference in this revisional jurisdiction. 12. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. All the contentions are kept open to be urged in the suit in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53