- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41648 CRP No. 514 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.514 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: SHRI SHRI SOMASHEKARA SHIVACHARYA SWAMIJIGALU SHIVACHARYA SWAMIJIGALU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT T. MAYIGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573211 …PETITIONER (BY SRI LOKESHA D K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M P PARAMESHA S/O PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK-573211 2. SRI. M.N RAJAPPA S/O NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK -573211 3. SRI. M.S MAHADEVAPPA S/O SOMAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLI MYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK-573211 Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41648 CRP No. 514 of 2025 4. SRI. M.N PUTTASWAMAPPA S/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK-573211 5. SRI. M.C PRAKASHKUMAR S/0 CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK-573211 6. SRI. M.M. SADASHIVAMURTHY S/O B.N MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK-573211 7. SRI. M.B SWAMY S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK-573211 8. SRI. MALIKARJUNA S/O CHANBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK-573211 9. SRI. M.N PUTTARAJU S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41648 CRP No. 514 of 2025 HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK-573211 10. SRI. M.S SHIVAPPA S/O SOMAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK-573211 11. SRI. M.S CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH S/O SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK-573211 12. SRI. M.S BASAVALINGAPPA S/O SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK -573211 13. SRI. M.V PRAKASHA S/O VIRBADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK -573211 14. SRI. M.A TEKESHWARAIAH S/O APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT MAYEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLIMYSORE HOBLI, H.N PURA TALUK-573211 15. SRI. M.N DEVARAJ S/O NANJUNDAPPA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41648 CRP No. 514 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS SHRI SHIV.... RICE MILL OWNER HALLIMYSORE, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN TALUK-573211 16. SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT SARAGURU VILLAGE, HARDANAHALLI POST, SALIGRAMA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571604 17. SRI. S.M SHIVANNA S/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT SARAGURU VILLAGE, HARDANAHALLI POST, SALIGRAMA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571604 18. SMT. SHYLA W/O MAHADEVSWAMI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NARALAPURA VILLAGE KASBA HOBLI, PIRAIAHPATTANA TALUK, MYSORE-571107 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R9 AND R13 TO R15; R10, R12, 17 AND 18 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2025 NOTICE TO R1, R11 AND R16 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.IX IN O.S.NO.26/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA, DISMISSING THE I.A No.9 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41648 CRP No. 514 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Defendant in O.S No.26/2024 is the revision petitioner challenging the Order passed by the Trial Court on I.A No.9 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: A suit came to be filed by the respondents herein in O.S. No.26/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, against the revision petitioner and two others for the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 26.05.2023 is null and void in respect of item ‘A’ of the suit property and to declare that said property is the property of the first defendant and not the individual property of the second defendant. 3. It is also prayed that the possession of the property should be handed over to the Shree Rajapura Mutt and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41648 CRP No. 514 of 2025 restraining the first defendant from alienating the Mutt properties to third parties. 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement inter alia contending that there is no cause of action to file the suit as it is the self- acquired property of the defendant No.1 and also there is no cause of action to file the suit. 5. Application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing detailed objections. 6. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties, noted that the contention urged by the first defendant is a mixed question of law and facts, which needs to be thrashed out after full- fledged trial. Accordingly, application came to be rejected. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, first defendant is before this Court. 8. Sri Lokesha D.K. learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant No.1 reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that item ‘A’ of the schedule property is the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41648 CRP No. 514 of 2025 self-acquired property of the defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiffs could not lay claim on those properties and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Per contra, Sri Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel for the respondents, appearing through video conferencing, supports the impugned order. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, whether at all the suit schedule ‘A’ property is a property of the Mutt or individual property of the first defendant has to be decided only after full-fledged trial. 12. At the threshold, plaint cannot be thrown out by exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, cause of action paragraph in the plaint discloses prima facie cause of action for the plaintiffs to institute the suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41648 CRP No. 514 of 2025 13. It is needless to emphasize that cause of action in a suit is bundle of facts and there are material particulars given in the plaint as to how the suit is maintainable by the devotees of Shree Rajapura Mutt. 14. Under such circumstances, dismissal of the application by the Trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference by exercising the revision powers vested in this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Revision Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29