- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 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.529 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI M V SESHAN S/O LATE M. VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.36, 2ND MAIN, BINNY LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE -560040 …PETITIONER (BY SMT.HARSHITHA SURESH FOR SRI VAMSHI KRISHNA.C, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI HARSHA MURTHY S/O M.V.MURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.83, 16FT CROSS, 14FT MAIN, 4FT SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE -560102. 2. SRI.M.V. MURTHY S/O LATE M. VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS FLAT NO.BZ-1307, 13FT FLOOR GOKULAM APARTMENT, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 062 3. SRI SHRINIVASAIAH.M S/O LATE MUNEPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 R/AT SOMESHWARA PALYA VILLAGE, NEAR SOMESHWARA PALYA TEMPLE MULBAGAL TOWN, WARD NO.23, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. 4. SRI. SOMASHANKAR.M S/O LATE M.G.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT.SOMESHWARA PALYA VILLAGE, NEAR SOMESHWARA PALYA TEMPLE MULBAGAL TOWN, WARD NO.23, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. 5. SRI. SYED TABRAZ PASHA S/O, SYED MUNAVAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT MULABAGAL TOWN, SHAMEER MOHALLA, MULABAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. 6. SRI.RAHAMATHULLA SHARIEF S/O ATHAULLA SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT MULABAGAL TOWN NO.2541 MC ROAD, KHALIF MOHALLA NEAR BALE CHANGAPPA SCHOOL MULABAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTICT-563 131. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAMESH KUMAR.V FOR SRI P.M.NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATES FOR C/R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2025, NOTICE TO R2 TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R6) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A.No.2 IN OS.No.124/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MULBAGAL, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (d) OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 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 Heard Sri Harshita Suresh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Ramesh Kumar for Sri P.N.Narayana Swamy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 6. 2. Second defendant in O.S No.124/2024 is the revision petitioner challenging the rejection of I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 4. First respondent filed a suit in O.S No.124/2024 for partition and separation of the following properties hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit properties’. “A" SCHEDULE PROPERTIES Item No.1 All the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Sy.No.468 measuring 2 acre 37 guntas situated at Mulabagal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District and bounded on the; East by: Land of Rajanna West by: Land of Lakshmidevamma North by : Land of Rajanna South by : Land of Srinivas Item No.2: All the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Sy.No.507/1 measuring 1 acre 4.08 guntas situated at Mulabagal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District and bounded on the ; East by : Land of Lakshmidevamma West by : Land of B.Gopalayya North by : Kere Kodi South by : Land of Lakshmidevamma. Item No.3. All the piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.3/7 measuring 03 quntas situated at Mulabagal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District and bounded on the: East by : Land of Anjanayya Shetty West by : Land of Subramani North by : Land of Venkatachalapathi South by : Land of Lakshmidevamma. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 Item No.4 All the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Sy.No.3/1 measuring 04 guntas situated at Mulabagal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District and bounded on the; East by : Land of Narayanamma West by Land of B.Gopalayya North by : Land of Venkatachalapathi South by : Thoti Inamthi Land Item No.5. All the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Sy.No.13/2 measuring 08 guntas situated at Mulabagal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District and bounded on the; East by : Land of Anjanayya Shetty West by : Land of Bale Venkataswami North by : Inamthi Land South by : Land of Venkatachalapati Item No.6. All the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Sy.No.31/5 measuring 11 guntas situated at Mulabagal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District and bounded on the; East by : Land of Dhananjaya West by: Road NH-4 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 North by: Land of Pool Narayanappa South by : Road NH-4 Item No.7 All the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Sy.No.10/1 measuring 11 guntas situated at Mulabagal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District and bounded on the; East by : Land of Sarojamma West by : Land of Sarojamma North by : Land of Sarojamma South by : Land of Sarojamma Item No.8 All the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Sy.No.38/4 measuring 10.08 guntas situated at Mulabagal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District and bounded on the; East by : Land of T.Muniswami West by : Land of Bale Narayanamma North by : Land of Govindappa South by : Land of Bale Narayanamma "B" SCHEDULE PROPERTIES Item No.1 All the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Sy.No.31/2 measuring 39 guntas situated at Someshwarapalya - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District and bounded on the; East by : Land of Rajanna West by : Land of Krishnayya North by : Land of Nagappa South by : Land of Krishnayya Item No.2. All the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Sy.No.27 measuring 3 acre 06 guntas situated at Someshwarapalya Village, Kasaba Hobli Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District and bounded on the; East by : Wakf Board Property West by : Land of GowdaraShankarappa North by : Land of T.M.Srinivas South by : Land of Dhananjaya Item No.3 All the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Sy.No.28/3 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas situated at Someshwarapalya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District and bounded on the; East by : KGF Road West by: Inamthi Land North by : Land of TCH School South by : Land of Rajanna - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 Item No.4 All the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Sy.No.45 measuring 21 guntas situated at Someshwarapalya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District and bounded on the; East by : Private property of Gajula Somanna West by : Road (Mulbagal to Virupakshi) North by : Talari Muniswamy Property South by : RK International School & Prasanna Someshwara Temple Item No.5 All the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Sy.No.427/3 measuring 1 acre situated at Someshwarapalya Village, Kasaba Hobli Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District and bounded on the; East by: Private property of Gajula Somanna West by : Road (Mulbagal to Virupakshi) North by: Talari Muniswamy Property South by: RK International School & Prasanna Someshwara Temple "C" SCHEDULE PROPERTY All the piece and parcel of the immovable property comprising of land together with existing building thereon bearing Municipal No.3120/2859 situated at Someshwara Palya, Mulabagal, Mulabagal Taluk Kolar District, measuring East to west 39 feet and North to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 South 48 feet totally measuring 1872 sq feet, together with existing building thereon and bounded on the; East by: Road West by : House Property of Parvathamma North by : Site of M.V. Murthy South by : Road” 5. Plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 1-M.A.Murthy, who was party to the alleged unregistered partition deed with his uncles and the grandmother. 6. Cause of action paragraph in the plaint is at paragraph No.31; which reads as under: “31. The cause of action of the suit arose 25.8.2024 and 5.9.2024 and on subsequent dates when the defendants refused to give share in the suit schedule properties by dividing the same, equally amongst the plaintiff and defendants and all subsequent dates within the jurisdiction of the Court.” 7. Defendant No.2 having entered appearance before the Trial Court, filed written statement and also an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that in view of the previous partition and first defendant being the father of the plaintiff being a party to such - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 an unregistered partition deed, cannot maintain the suit and there is no cause for action to file the suit. 8. Plaintiff objected to the said application and the learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the application by the impugned Order. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 is before this Court in this revision petition on following grounds:  “Primary document-the alleged unregistered Partition Deed dated 22.06.1986 is an invalid document ab initio: a. The Plaintiff admits and relies upon an unregistered partition deed and has failed to challenge it: Notwithstanding the legality of the unregistered partition deed, it is submitted that on a bare perusal of the averments of the plaint and its supporting documents, it can be seen that the Plaintiff who is seeking partition and declaration is admitting to and relying upon an unregistered partition deed dated 22.06.1986 to derive his right to seek the said relief before the Hon'ble Trial Court. Prima facie perusal of the alleged Partition Deed, it is very evident that it is an invalid and unenforceable document. The said - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 document neither mentions the nature of the properties nor does it divide the alleged ancestral property equally amongst the existing coparceners as per the law as on 1986. The Plaintiff himself (the alleged sole "male heir"), who was born in 1979 (much prior to the 1986 Partition Deed) is also not made a party to the said unregistered Partition Deed even through his legal guardians. These are visible on prima facie examination of the primary document through which the Plaintiff has allegedly acquired locus standi as a "sole male coparcener" to make the specific reliefs sought in the Original Suit. Hence, it is pertinent to note at this stage that the Plaintiff has not challenged the validity of the so-called Partition Deed. b. It is established law that once the Plaintiff admits and relies upon an alleged partition deed without challenging its validity in the first instance, loses the right to do so in any further proceedings as well. c. The existence of parties in the alleged Partition Deed who are not legal coparceners to the alleged ancestral property and joint family property: The Respondent No. 1 has relied upon an alleged unregistered Partition Deed dated 22.06.1986, wherein it appears that the alleged ancestral and joint family property have been - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 divided amongst the Late Venkatramaiah's wife, two surviving sons (Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 herein) and one Mr. Muneppa and Mr. Lakshmaiah (Schedule D as mentioned in the alleged unregistered Partition Deed). The relationship of the said Mr. Muneppa and Mr. Lakshmaiah (children of one Mr. Gopalappa) to either the Plaintiff or Late Mr. Venkataramaiah has been deliberately withheld. Neither the Genealogy Tree Affidavit filed by the Plaitniff, the alleged unregistered Partition Deed dated 22.06.21986 nor any other document is produced to show that Mr. Gopalappa or his sons are related to the Plaintiff or his father in any manner. Hence, by virtue of the division of the alleged ancestral property to unrelated persons deems the said unregistered Partition Deed is invalid ab initio. d. The said document requires no further trial to observe that the Plaintiff does not have the right to seek partition as per the unregistered partition deed dated 22.06.1986. If at all he is seeking partition of the alleged ancestral property, he has to include all the ancestral property and all coparceners in the suit and seek for an equal partition amongst all coparceners as the properties remain undivided due to the invalidity of the unregistered partition deed and cannot be restricted to the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 alleged "sole male coparcener" as on 2024. Hence, his prayers as sought in OS 124/2024 is not maintainable and barred by law.  The Plaintiff has failed to show through the documents produced along with the Plaint, that the Suit Schedule Properties are ancestral in nature: The documents produced by the Plaintiff along with the Plaint at the time of filing of the suit only show an unregistered partition deed (as per the infirmities above is void ab initio), RTCs from the year 1981-82 till 2024, release deed dated 27.01.2016 and the registered sale deeds dated 06.09.2024. The Plaintiff has failed to show through these documents that there is even a mention that the suit schedule properties were ancestral and were acquired by the great grandfather (Late Mr. Marasetty). Neither the unregistered partition deed or the RTC produced show that the property held by Late Mr. Venkataramaiah were of ancestral in nature and coloumn 9 or 10 of the RTC does not mention the properties to be "prithrarjitha" as concluded by the Hon'ble Trial Court. Furthermore, as per the established principle of law, no additional averments or documents can be considered while adjudicating an application seeking to reject the Plaint other than the ones produced along with the Plaint. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is required to substantiate his claims in support of his relief claimed and not merely make statements which are not supported by documents. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025  The Plaintiff in paragraph nos. 10 and 11 of the Plaint has admitted that the Suit Schedule Properties were subject to partition by certain members of the family in the year 1986. A close reading of the unregistered Partition Deed makes it evident that the Suit Schedule Properties are the self-acquired properties of the late Sri.M.Venkataramaiah as there is no mention in the recitals of the Deed that the properties to be partitioned are ancestral properties belonging to the joint family. As there is no classification or mention that any of the properties therein are ancestral in nature, the said properties which are partitioned ought to be treated as the self acquired property of Sri.M.Venkataramaiah without any evidence to the contrary.  The Trial court has made several assumptions that are neither mentioned in the Plaint or any other document: a. The Hon'ble Trial Court has failed to observe that the alleged Partition Deed is unregistered and also includes persons that are not established as legal coparceners. Neither in the Plaint or any other document mentions Mr. Gopalappa as the "uncle" of Late Mr. Venkatramaiah. it can be clearly seen that the widow of Late Mr. Venkataramaiah has received the majority share of the property post his demise. However, the Hon'ble Trial Court has admitted this document as valid and has assumed that the Suit Schedule Properties arising from the same are ancestral and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 joint family in nature when it does not even mention the same in the document itself. The Plaintiff has not included or mentioned the relationship of Mr. Gopalappa with Mr. Venkatramaiah. Hence, it is astonishing to observe the Trial Court's conclusion on the same to observe that the one Mr. Gopalappa was the uncle of Late Mr. Venkataramaiah. The Plaintiff himself has not included his in his family tree if the same were to be understood as a fact. b. Furthermore, the Trial Court observes that: "the revenue documents produced by the Plaintiff at this stage discloses that, the name of Venkataramaiah find place in column No. 9 and in column no. 10 contains a writing as "Prithrarjitha". However, it is pertinent to note that the Plaintiff has not produced any document to showcase the said averment along with its Plaint. It is reiterated that any document filed which was not part of the Plaint or plaint averments cannot be used to adjudicate an application for rejection of plaint. In this situation, the alleged documents that show "Prithrarjitha" were not part of the Plaint or supporting documents, the Defendants were not served of any additional documents prior to or on the date of hearing and most importantly, the Plaintiff has not filed any application seeking the leave of the Court to adduce any further - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 documents. The same can be perused through the entire order sheet of OS 124/2024 produced herewith as Annexure C. Hence, the order is infirm as per the above grounds. c. As admitted by the Plaintiff, the properties were held by the widow of Late Mr. Venkataramaiah and his sons post his demise. The daughters have allegedly released/relinquished their right over the properties that were allotted to the widow of Late Mr. Venkataramaiah as the properties had clearly attained the value of a self-acquired absolute property of Late Lakshmidevamma since 1986 by virtue of the admitted unregistered Partition Deed under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. It is also pertinent to note that the Release Deed executed by the daughters of the Late Lakshmidevamma were strictly limited to properties allotted to Late Lakshmidevamma (their mother) and not with respect to the entire of the Suit Schedule Property as wrongly assumed by the Trial Court.  Furthermore, as per the Plaintiff's second prayer to Declare the registered Sale Deed dated 06.09.2024 is not maintainable for the reasons mentioned above but also for the fact that Sy. No. 27, which is the Schedule Property with respect to the registered Sale Deed dated 06.09.2024 was initially in the share of Late Lakshmidevamma as per the unregistered partition deed as admitted by the Plaintiff. The same came to be - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 released in favour of the Defendants No. 1 and 2 only in 2016 by the surviving daughters of Late Lakshmidevamma. Hence, the Plaintiff cannot make a claim on a property that was not allotted to his father through the alleged unregistered partition deed. Strictly going by the averments stated in the Plaint, it appears that the Plaintiff on one hand admits to the form and content of the unregistered partition deed and claims to be the "sole male heir" to his father's share of ancestral property, while also claiming a share from the allegedly ancestral property that was given to the widow of Late Mг. Venkatramaiah, which has reassumed the status of ancestral property post release deed. These claims are not only preposterous but barred by law.  The suit is merely an attempt made by the Plaintiff to grab the Suit Schedule Properties from their rightful owners, i.e., the Defendant No 1 and 2 by making out untenable claims without supporting documents to that regard. The Plaintiff has alleged that his grandfather Late Mr. M.Venkataramaiah had inherited the Suit Schedule Properties from his father, Late Sri. Marashetty and the same has devolved upon the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 constituting a HUF. If the Suit Schedule Properties are in fact the ancestral properties, then the Respondent No.1's grandmother could not have executed the Partition Deed and received a substantial portion of the alleged ancestral property in the year 1986 while the sons and the Plaintiff were alive. Such contradictory statement showcase that the Plaintiff has failed to make - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 out a cause of action. It is established law that the Trial Court has to see through clever drafting in order to establish a cause of action and not merely rely upon the section of the Plaint that mentions "cause of action". Furthermore, when there are contradictory statements made by the Plaintiff the benefit of doubt has to be given to the Defendant and not the other way around.  It is submitted that upon the execution of the Partition Deed, the alleged status of joint family property/ ancestral property' is extinguished as on the date of the Partition Deed, as the Deed in express terms had bifurcated the shares of each of the signatories to the Partition Deed and as such, each of the beneficiaries have been given sole possession of their respective shares. Admittedly, after the execution of the Partition Deed, the revenue entries reflect the name of the Late. Smt. Lakshmidevamma with respect to the shares that were allotted to her under the Partition Deed. This fact makes it evident that the execution of the Partition Deed, the share devolved to the name of the Smt. Lakshmidevamma becomes her absolute property as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Plaintiff has admitted the contents and the execution of the Partition Deed and such being the case, the Respondent No.1 is precluded from seeking for further partition of the Suit Schedule Properties. It is submitted that late Sri.M. Venkataramaiah died intestate and after his death, his legal heirs succeed to his properties by way of succession, wherein the legal heirs succeed to the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 properties in an individual capacity and the joint family ceases to exist. Therefore, the property loses the character of ancestral property in lieu of the application of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.  It is submitted that the Plaintiff's claim that the Suit Schedule Properties are ancestral properties lacks documentary evidence and is contradicted by the inconsistent stance taken by him in his own pleadings. The Partition Deed negates the Plaintiff's claim that the Suit Schedule Properties are ancestral properties and the Deed itself states that the joint family arrangement has ended and each beneficiary is responsible for their respective shares. As per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Suit Schedule Properties devolved to the legal heirs of the late Sri.M. Venkataramaiah after his death. The Plaintiff being a Class II heir, has no right, title or interest in the Suit Schedule Properties during the lifetime of his father, I.e., Defendant No. 1. When ex facie it can be seen that the Plaintiff does not have a right to file a suit for partition, then the Hon'ble Trial Court ought to have rejected the Plaint, as continuation of the said suit would be an abuse of process of Court and is truly instituted to harass the Defendants and usurp property that the Plaintiff is not entitled to.  It is clear by the very admissions of the Plaintiff in the Plaint and the supporting documents relied thereon that the contention taken by the Plaintiff that the Suit Schedule Properties are the ancestral and joint family - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 properties of his great grandfather is simply concocted by the Plaintiff to wrongfully assert his right over the Suit Schedule Properties. It is a well settled position in law that a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously in the same proceedings and the stance adverse to the party ought to be considered. It is not the allegation of the Plaintiff that the partition deed dated 22.06.1986 is not binding on him nor is the said partition challenged by the Plaintiff in the present suit to seek partition of the alleged ancestral property as a coparcener.  The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again has opined that when a son inherits the property in a situation contemplated under Section 8, he takes the property in his own right and the said property cannot be considered to be joint family property. The Defendant No. 1 and 2 along with their mother as per the Plaintiff appear to have partitioned the Suit Schedule Properties in the year 1986, subsequently, the Suit Schedule Properties ceased to be joint family properties. Such being the case, the Plaintiiff is precluded from seeking for partition upon disruption of the alleged joint family property in 1986 itself. The Hon'ble Trial Court has miserably failed to apply its mind and appreciate these crucial aspects. Hence, the Impugned Order ought to be set aside.  The Hon'ble Trial Court in paragraph no.20 of the Impugned Order states that adjudicating the issue whether the Suit Schedule Properties are ancestral - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 properties or self acquired of late Sri.M.Venkataramaiah requires evidence and hence, the Plaint cannot be rejected. It is submitted that the Partition Deed and the Release Deed produced by the Plaintiff along with the Plaint makes it apparent that the reliefs claimed in the Plaint are barred by law and since the said documents are admitted, there is no necessity to look into more evidence. Further, the Plaintiff is seeking to enforce a right/interest claimed through the Partition Deed, which is unregistered and void ab initio and as such, the Plaint ought to have been rejected by the Hon'ble Trial Court as per the specific reliefs set out in the Plaint.  An application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC requires a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a plethora of cases has held that clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and has to establish a clear right to sue in the plaint. In the present case, the Plaintiff has admitted the contents and the execution of the Partition Deed as well as the Release Deed dated 27.01.2016. The Plaintiff has in fact relied upon these documents to derive his right to claim a share in the Suit Schedule Properties. Hence, it is apparent that there is no clear right to sue and the Hon'ble Trial Court ought to have dismissed the Plaint on the ground that it is barred by law. Hence, the intervention of this Hon'ble Court is Imperative to allow I.A.No.2 and to set aside the Impugned Order. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025  The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated in a plethora of its judgments that the main object of Order VII Rule 11 is to put to end to frivolous and sham litigation that waste the time of the judiciary. It is trite law that if by clever drafting, the Plaintiff has made out an illusory cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage and that the Courts must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court. It is clear that the Plaintiff herein has merely created a cause of action to fit the nature of the case and usurp a claim in the Suit Schedule Properties which he clearly has no right over by his own admissions and hence, the suit is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be rejected in limine.” 10. Ms.Harshita Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that when there is a previous partition for which the first defendant, being the father of the plaintiff was a party, plaintiff cannot maintain the suit. The cause of action mentioned in paragraph 31 of the plaint referred to supra is imaginary and ill-motivated and sought for allowing the revision petition. Consequently, she sought for rejection of the plaint. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent-Sri Ramesh Kumar, supports the impugned order. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, on the day of alleged unregistered partition, plaintiff was born and the partition deed does not mention that the father of the plaintiff has got the share in the suit property for and on behalf of himself and his minor son. 14. Further, share has been granted to the mother of the father of the plaintiff and his brothers. Mother is not a sharer for the unregistered partition whereas, minor son of the first defendant was a necessary sharer. 15. Under such circumstances, prima facie no prohibitive value can be attached to the said unregistered partition in view of the fact that the necessary sharers are not included in the said partition. On the contrary non-sharer (mother of father of plaintiff) is included in the unregistered partition. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41649 CRP No. 529 of 2025 16. If at all if the parties had agreed to a sort settlement as family settlement, it is for the Trial Court to decide the same based on the material evidence that would be placed by the parties during the trial. 17. In other words, a triable issue is made out from the reading of the plaint, averments in the written statement and the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2. 18. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the rejection of the application by the Trial Court is just and proper which requires no interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 19. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) All contentions available to the defendant No.2 is kept open to be urged in the trial. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30