- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH 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. 1851 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHESHACHALA S/O LATE P.V.NIRMAL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 2. SRI. SUHAS, S/O LATE P.V.NIRMAL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. APPELLANT NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.117, 4TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MURTHY.K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. YOGESHA B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O LATE. P.V. NIRMAL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/A NO. 117, 4TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 2. SMT. JAYASHREE, D/O P.V. NIRMAL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 117, 4TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018. 3. SMT. SABITHA. SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S. SRI. DWARAKANATH.S. S/O LATE. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 4. SRI. BADRINATH.S. S/O LATE. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 5. SRI. NARENDRANATH.S, S/O LATE. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO. 1596/1-9, NEW NO.73, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, S.S.NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU-560 021. 6. SRI. P.M. DEVAKINANDAN, S/O LATE.P. V. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 7. SMT. P.M. SOUMYA, D/O LATE.P.V. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.6 & 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 4/58, 2ND MAIN ROAD, COCONUT GARDEN, NAGARABHAVI, MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 072. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 8. SMT.P. EASHWARI, W/O LATE P.V. UMAPATHY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 9. KUM.P.V. CHETHANA, D/O LATE P.V. UMAPATHY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.8 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 118, 4TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018. 10. SRI. R. SRINIVAS RAJU S/O LATE N.R. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, C/O BHAGYASHREE DEVELOPERS, NO. 14/129, "SHAKTI SRI" NEW B.E.L. ROAD, R.M.V.2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 094. 11. SRI.B.V. SREENIVASA MURTHY, S/O LATE. B.L. VENKATESHAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 11, 8TH MAIN ROAD, BINNY LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040. 12. SRI. FAYAZ AHMED, S/O SHAIK PYARU SAAB, RESIDING AT NO. 35, 1ST CROSS ROAD, 2ND MAIN ROAD, J.H.B.C.S. LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 078. 13. K.M. PRAKASH, S/O MUTHANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/OF MARAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SOLEKERE POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 14. SMT.P.SOUMYA, D/O C.T. PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/OF NAVILE VILLAGE, ATHAKURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 15. SRI. RAVISH GOWDA, S/O HANUME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.925, 10TH CROSS, 22ND MAIN, 2ND PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R14, SRI. KRISHNA B.R, ADVOCATE FOR C/R15 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN OS.NO.8268/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants- plaintiffs challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.2/2025 filed by defendant No.15 i.e., respondent No.15 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.8268/2011 before the learned XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for brevity "the Trial Court") whereby, the Trial court allowed I.A.No.2/2025 and consequently, rejected the plaint as the suit is barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC and for want of cause of action. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court. 3. The abridged facts of the case are as under: The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. One Venugopalswamy Naidu was the grandfather of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 plaintiffs, who died intestate on 03.09.1977 leaving behind his wife one Kamalamma and three sons namely P.V.Nirmal Kumar (father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and husband of defendant No.1), P.V.Manjunath (defendant No.4), P.V.Umapathi Naidu (defendant No.5) and a daughter - Smt.Sabitha (defendant No.3). Since defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 were dead, they were represented by their legal representatives. 4. Defendant No.15, being the subsequent purchaser of suit schedule 'A' property filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking rejection of plaint as there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit, the subject matter of the suit was not properly valued and that the suit was barred by law. 5. The plaintiffs filed their objections to the said application. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 6. The Trial Court, upon perusal of the pleadings of the parties as enumerated in the plaint, I.A.No.2/2025 and objections, framed the following point for consideration: " Whether there exist sufficient grounds to reject the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action to file suit and cause of action shown in plaint is not real one, plaintiff has not properly valued the subject matter of suit and the very suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law? " 7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on assessment of oral submissions and documents placed by both the parties, the Trial Court answered the aforesaid point in the affirmative and allowed I.A.No.2/2025 filed by defendant No.15 and rejected the plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action and that the suit was barred by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 CPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs preferred the instant appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Murthy K., for the plaintiffs/appellants, the learned counsel Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, for defendant No.14/respondent No.14 and learned counsel Sri Krishna B.R., for defendant No.15/respondent No.15. 9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion that there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the present suit and that the same was barred by law. It was contended that the earlier application I.A.No.3 filed by defendant No.14 seeking rejection of plaint was dismissed, against which, she approached this Court in CRP.No.129/2014, which was disposed of affirming the order of dismissal of the said IA. As such, the Trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order on I.A.No.2/2025 filed by the defendant No.15 which - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 is contrary to the order passed in I.A.No.3 filed by the defendant No.14. 10. Further, it was contended that the Trial Court has failed to consider the relief sought by the plaintiffs was for partition and separate possession and the plaintiffs had never sought for any prayer to set aside the compromise decree passed in OS.No.600/1998 which was compromised by the father of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule properties. As such, the Trial Court has erred in dismissing the application as barred under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. 11. Further, he contended that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC, the averments in the plaint should be read as a whole. 12. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and restoring the suit. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.14 and 15 contended that though there was a compromise entered by the father of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.600/1998 seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties, the plaintiffs filed the present suit again seeking partition and possession of very same suit schedule properties. As such, there is no cause of action and that the suit is barred by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed by defendant No.15 and rejected the plaint. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the sole point that arises for our consideration is: "Whether the Trial Court is justified in allowing I.A.No.2/2025, thereby rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.8268/2011?" - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 15. It could be gathered from the records that the father of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 constituted a hindu joint family and the suit schedule properties were the joint family properties. However, it is the contention of the appellants that without there being a partition and without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, defendant No.4 and his mother filed a suit against the father of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.600/1998 and obtained a collusive compromise decree and thereafter, defendant No.4 obtained the Sale Deed of the suit schedule 'B' property from BDA and sold the same to defendant Nos.11 and 12. As such, the plaintiffs had no knowledge about filing of suit and compromise decree passed in O.S.No.600/1998. Further, the earlier application filed by defendant No.14 for rejection of plaint on the same ground that there was a compromise decree in OS.No.600/1998 was dismissed and affirmed by this Court in CRP.No.129/2014, wherein it was observed that the contention raised by defendant No.14 in respect of Order - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 XXIII Rule 3A of CPC and about the right of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties have to be decided only after the trial. Such being the position, the present application filed by defendant No.15 on the similar ground ought not to have been entertained by the Trial Court. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in respect of cause action, the averments in the plaint should be read as a whole. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that, these mixed question of facts and law has to be dealt with in a detail trial. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY V/S SYED JALAL - (2017) 13 SCC 174, held that, since the power conferred on the court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to the exercise of power for rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. The question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that, the Trial Court has failed to consider the above aspect as per the law enumerated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. Hence, the interference in the impugned order is called for. Accordingly, we answer the point raised above in the “negative” and proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The Regular First Appeal is allowed. 2. The order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.2/2025 filed by defendant No.15 i.e., respondent No.15 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.8268/2011 is hereby set aside. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37467-DB RFA No. 1851 of 2025 3. The suit in O.S No.8268/2011 is restored to its original file. 4. The parties shall mark their appearance before the Trial Court on 15.10.2025 without expecting any further notice. 5. All contentions are left open. All pending I.As. stand disposed of. The Registry is directed return the records, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith along with the certified copy of this judgment. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14