- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47551 CRP No. 141 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 141 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BORAMMA D/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. K T KUMARASWAMY S/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. K T BHAVYA D/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O KATAPPANAHATTY CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SIDDAPPA B M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K. T. THIPPESWAMY S/O THIPPERUDRAPPA AGRICULTURIST AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O KATAPPANAHATTY CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522 2. SMT CHITTAMMA W/O LATE CHANNAPPA Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47551 CRP No. 141 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS 3. MALLAMMA D/O LATE KARKANE THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS 4. SMT MALLAMMA D/O LATE K T THIPPERUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 5. SMT BORAMMA W/O LATE K T PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 6. K P MEENAKSHI D/O LATE K T PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 7. K P YOGANANDA S/O LATE K T PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 8. SMT PAPAMMA W/O LATE T BORANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O PADAGATE, OLD TOWN CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522 9. K T B RAJU S/O LATE K T THIPPERUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 10. SMT K T RATHNAMMA D/O LATE K T THIPPERUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 11. K T MANJULA D/O LATE K T THIPPERUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47551 CRP No. 141 of 2023 12. VIMALAMMA W/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 13. K T RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE K T THIPPERUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 7 AND 9 TO 13 ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O KATAPPANAHATTY CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI O RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT.DEVISREE.N.G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI Y.H.VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATES FOR R5 TO R7, R9 TO R11; R2, R4, R8, R12 AND R13 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.04.2025, PETITION IS ABATED AGAINST R3) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.7 IN O.S.No.98/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE, REJECTING THE IA No.7 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a AND d) OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47551 CRP No. 141 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Siddappa B.M., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri O. Rajanna, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Defendant Nos.3, 13 (b) and 13 (c) are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed seeking rejection of the plaint in this revision. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. A suit in O.S.No.98/2017 came to be filed for partition and separation possession in respect of the suit properties by contending that the plaintiffs are also having share in the suit property. 4. Defendants entered appearance and filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action to the suit and suit is barred by limitation. 5. In the affidavit, the very defendant himself says that the clever drafting has been made to overcome the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47551 CRP No. 141 of 2023 embargo with regard to the cause of action and the cause of action that is claimed is illusory in nature. 6. Plaintiffs opposed the said application and learned trial Judge by considering the rival contentions of the parties, rejected the said application. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.3, 13(b) and 13(c) are before this court in this revision petition. 8. Sri B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the plaint is cleverly drafted only with an intention to overcome the period of limitation as well as to create a cause of action where there is none and the same has not been properly considered by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Per contra, counsel for the contesting respondent, Sri O. Rajanna, supports the impugned order. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47551 CRP No. 141 of 2023 11. On such perusal of the material on record, learned trial Judge in paragraphs number 11 and 12 has held as under while rejecting the application: “11. It is well settled proposition of law that, the cause of action means bundle of rights which plaintiff has to prove in order to get a decree from the Civil Court. The cause of action, as a matter of fact is not merely a formality. But, after reading the plaint averments meaningfully a clear right to sue defendants for the reliefs should be there. Here the plaintiff has stated as to the relationship of him with Defendants. The plait averments clearly at this stage shows that the ancestor of the Plaintiffis and Defendants was one Kyasaiah and parties to the suit hails from said Kyasaiah/ancestor. A perusal of the plaint averments, it appears that, the cause of action is clearly pleaded in para 10. Hence, Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff has pleaded cause of action to file this suit. So far as, contention of the applicants that Plaintiff has pleaded illusory cause of action but, on perusal of entire plaint averments it does not seems so. The advocate for the Defendants themselves relied upon decisions to the effect that Court is not bound to consider the contents of written statement while deciding the application under order 7 rule 11 but, in the affidavit appended with this application it is stated that the Court should take into consideration of the written statement averments to reject the plaint and reproduced entire - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47551 CRP No. 141 of 2023 contents of written statement in the form of affidavit, which is not acceptable one. 12. So far as, defense of limitation to file this suit is concerned it is noted that this suit is filed seeking partition and separate possession. It is well settled law that legislature has not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a suit for partition because partition an incident attached to the property and there is always a running cause of action for seeking partition by one of the co- sharers. Since, filing of the suit is wholly dependent upon the will of the co-sharer, the period of limitation, specifically the date or time from where such period would commence, could not have been possibly providing for by the legislature and therefore, no such prescription is made in the law of limitation, as far as suits for partition are concerned. The question of limitation to seek partition arises only when Defendants takes defense about the ouster from the family. Here it is not the said defense. It is also settle law that law of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the same is required to the considered after looking in to the evidence that could be adduce by the parities in a full fledged trial. For the forgoing reasons Court is of the opinion that application is deserves to be rejected. Hence, this court has answers Point No.1 in the Negative.” 12. It is to be noted that the cause of action is a bundle of facts which needs to be adjudicated during the trial and so - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47551 CRP No. 141 of 2023 also the question of limitation in a matter of this nature is mixed question of law and facts. 13. Therefore, dismissal of the application is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision petition. 14. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) However, all the contentions including the question of limitation is kept open to be urged during the trial in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR