- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7868 CRP No. 100057 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100057 OF 2025 BETWEEN: ABBASSAHEB S/O. GOUSAB SHIKALGAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO.41, CTS NO.72, 3RD CROSS, NEAR BILAL MASJID, AHMED NAGAR, VEERABHADR NAGAR, BELAGAVI -590 016. TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABDULMAJID S/O. GOUSAB SHIKALGAR, AGE: 66 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AKKATANGERAHAL – 591 101, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. ISAQASAB S/O. GOUSAB SHIKALGAR, AGE: 65 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AKKATANGERAHAL - 591101. TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. RAZAQSAB S/O. GOUSAB SHIKALGAR, AGE: 63 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AKKATANGERAHAL – 591 101. TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. NAZEERAHMED S/O. GOUSAB SHIKALGAR, AGE: 55 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AKKATANGERAHAL – 591 101. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7868 CRP No. 100057 of 2025 TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. MRS. SURAYABI W/O. ABDULSAB YADWAD, AGE: 68 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BALEKUNDRI – 591 103. TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. MRS. BIBIJAN W/O. MALIKJAN ADIHUDI, AGE: 58 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AKKATANGERAHAL – 591 101. TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 7. MRS. JANNATBI D/O. GOUSAB SHIKALGAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: AKKATANGERAHAL – 591 101. TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.06.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK IN O.S.NO. 101/2022 ON I.A. NO. 20 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (a) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATION IN I.A. NO. 20 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (a) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC SEEKING REJECTION OF THE PLAINT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. The present petition is filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2025 passed in O.S. No.101/2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7868 CRP No. 100057 of 2025 Judge, Gokak, rejecting the application IA No.20 filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 of CPC. 2. The above suit is filed by the plaintiffs / respondents herein seeking relief of declaration that the deed of gift alleged to have been executed by late Goussab Shikalgar in favour of defendant on 23.03.2006 and also the rectification deed dated 29.03.2006 as null and void not binding on the plaintiff and for decree of partition and separate possession of the suit property. It is contended that Goussab Shikalgar who is the father of the plaintiffs and defendant was the owner of the suit properties and he passed away on 25.03.2010. Upon his demise, the succession opened in terms of which the plaintiffs and the defendant became entitled for specified share in the suit properties. That during the second week of January – 2022, the plaintiffs approached the defendant and asked to effect the partition of suit property and handover their share. However, the defendant relying - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7868 CRP No. 100057 of 2025 upon the deed of gift dated 23.03.2006 claimed ownership over the suit property. Upon enquiry, the plaintiffs learnt that the said deed of gift had not been executed voluntarily by their deceased father. 3. In paragraph No.9 of the plaint, it is alleged that the father the plaintiffs and the defendant was aged about 90 years in 2006, was not keeping good health, and was also not mentally sound. Consequently, he was not in a position to dispose off the property voluntarily. During his lifetime, the plaintiffs had taken care their father out of love and affection, and hence, there was no reason for the father to execute the deed of gift in favour of the defendant. 4. It is further contended that the defendant obtained the said deed of gift by taking undue advantage of his father condition and exerting undue influence. As such the said deed of gift is illegal, void, and not binding on the plaintiff. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7868 CRP No. 100057 of 2025 5. The defendant has filed a written statement, along with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable, as it does not disclose a cause of action and is contrary to the provisions of law. 6. The only ground urged in the said application is that the father of both the plaintiffs and the defendant, during his lifetime, neither challenged nor revoked the registered deed of gift executed in favour of the defendant. It is contended that upon the death of the donor, the right to revoke the gift deed ceased to exist, as the said right was personal to the donor. Therefore, the suit was not maintainable and the plaint was liable to be rejected. 7. The trial Court upon consideration of the averments made in the plaint and also taking note of the fact that the defendant failed to point out any specific - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7868 CRP No. 100057 of 2025 provision of law under which the suit was barred, rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. . 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the present petition has been filed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law, more particularly Section No.167(3), submits that the right to revoke a gift is exclusively available only to the donor during his lifetime and such right do not survive upon his demise to be exercised by his legal heirs. It is further submitted that, in the present case, the donor admittedly passed away on 25.03.2010, and therefore the plaintiffs had no locus standi to maintain the suit. Accordingly, learned counsel contends that, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiffs have subsequently amended the plaint by incorporating paragraph No.16, wherein it is claimed that the deceased Goussab had executed a gift in favour of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7868 CRP No. 100057 of 2025 plaintiff No.4 in respect of the property bearing GPC No.621/3, and had even delivered possession of the said property. 11. It is contended that the plaintiff, having alleged that his father was weak and mentally not being sound at the time of executing the deed of gift in favour of the defendant, cannot now assert that the same father had executed a deed of gift in his favour, which runs country, is also a ground for rejection of plaint. 12. Heard. Perused the records. 13. It is pertinent to note that Section 167(3) of the Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law only provides as to who is entitled to seek revocation of a gift. It does not, in any manner whatsoever, bar the filing of a suit seeking cancellation of a deed of gift on the grounds such as unsoundness of mind, undue influence, or misrepresentation, fraud or coercion or on any other legally permissible grounds which are otherwise available in terms of Sections 16 and 19A of the Contract Act. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7868 CRP No. 100057 of 2025 14. As rightly observed by the trial Court, paragraph No.9 of the plaint contains specific allegations that the deceased Goussab was aged 90 years and was not having sound mind of disposition at the time of execution of the alleged deed of gift. Further, at paragraph No.11 of the plaint it is alleged that the defendant exerted undue influence and took advantage of the illhealth of their deceased in procuring the execution of the alleged deed of gift. 15. In that view of the matter and in the absence of any provision of law prohibiting the filing of the suit on the grounds urged, the plaint cannot be rejected as sought to be contented by the defendant. 16. The other grounds raised is that the plaintiffs themselves seeking to contend that the deceased Goussab executing the gift in favour of plaintiff No.4 by amending the plaint would also not lend any ground for rejection the plaint. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7868 CRP No. 100057 of 2025 17. Whether the deceased Goussab having sound mind of disposition to execute deeds of gift as claimed by the parties, is a matter of trial. The grounds urged in the application for rejection of plaint are in the nature of defence set up by the defendant in the suit. The same cannot be construed to provide ground for rejection of the plaint as contemplated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 18. Accordingly, no errors or irregularity can be found in the order passed by the trial Court in rejecting the application. 19. The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VMB & VNP / CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16