- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7861 CRP No. 100180 of 2023 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.100180 OF 2023 BETWEEN: HUSAINBI W/O. ALLASAB NADAF, AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANESH NAGAR, MADIHAL, DHARWAD, TAL: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH S. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ABDUL S/O. RAJESAB PINJARE, AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIPPALKATTI, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 204. 2. YALLAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA BAGIL, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLOLI, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 204. 3. MAHESH S/O. SIDDAPP BAGIL, AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLOLI, TAL: MUDALAGI, Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7861 CRP No. 100180 of 2023 NOW R/O: MADIHAL, DHARWAD, TAL: DHARWAD – 587 004. 4. GAIBUSAB ALISAB NADAF, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANESH NAGAR, MADIHAL, DHARWAD, TAL: DHARWAD. 5. LALSAB ALISAB NADAF, AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANESH NAGAR, MADIHAL, DHARWAD, TAL: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD – 587 004. 6. HAJARATHSAB ALISAB NADAF, AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANESH NAGAR, MADIHAL, DHARWAD, TAL: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD – 587 004. …RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2023 ON I.A. NO. 6 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RAMDURG IN OS NO. 129/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7861 CRP No. 100180 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This petition is by defendant No.1 being aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2023 passed on I.A.No.VI filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in O.S.No.129/2022 on the file of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramdurg by which the application filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed. 2. The above suit in O.S.No.129/2022 is filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking relief of declaration to declare that the gift deed dated 23.01.2017 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 is not binding on the plaintiff and also to declare that the deed of sale dated 06.04.2022 executed by defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 and 6 is illegal and not binding and consequently sought for permanent injunction. 3. In the paint, the plaintiff has contended that he is in possession of the suit property being absolute owner thereof. That the defendant No.1 who is none other than his sister had created agreement of sale purporting to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7861 CRP No. 100180 of 2023 have been executed by the plaintiff in her favour agreeing to sell the suit property on 17.07.2006. Thereafter, defendant No.1 had filed suit in O.S.No.34/2015 and obtained ex-parte judgment and decree on 31.08.2015 and thereafter had filed execution petition in E.P.No.103/2015. That with the assistance of the Court had obtained the deed of sale in her favour. That the plaintiff learning about the same had preferred an appeal in R.A.No.6/2018 which was allowed and matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Trial Court. The Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 29.03.2021 dismissed the suit of the defendant No.1. That in the meanwhile defendant No.1 had executed deed of gift dated 23.01.2017 in favour of defendant No.2 to 4 who in turn had executed deeds of sale on 06.04.2022 in favour of defendant No.5 and 6. 4. It is alleged that the aforesaid execution of the deed of gift and subsequent execution of deed of sale is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7861 CRP No. 100180 of 2023 illegal null, void and not binding on the plaintiff. Hence the suit. 5. Defendant No.1 who filed written statement has also filed the above application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint for want of cause of action. Objection to the said I.A. has been filed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court by the impugned order rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1 reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the application inasmuch as the day when the deed of gift and deed of sale were executed, the decree which was obtained by the defendant No.1 was valid and subsisting as such the transaction could not be held illegal and void which aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Trial Court. If the same had been - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7861 CRP No. 100180 of 2023 considered, there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to sustain the present suit. Hence, he submits the present petition be allowed rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff. 7. Heard. Perused the records. 8. There is no dispute of the fact that the decree for specific performance which the defendant No.1 had obtained in O.SNo.34/2015 was challenged by the plaintiff by filing regular appeal in R.A.No.6/2018. The said regular appeal was allowed remitting the suit in O.S.No.34/2015 for fresh consideration. On such remission, the suit came to be dismissed. There is no appeal filed by the defendants against the said dismissal of the suit. 9. However, in the meanwhile defendant No.1 had executed the deed of gift in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 who in turn executed the deed of sale in favour of defendants No.5 and 6. It is this transaction which the plaintiff is seeking to nullify by filing the present suit for declaration and for injunction. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7861 CRP No. 100180 of 2023 10. The Trial Court taking note of this aspect of the matter, has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made all necessary averments disclosing the cause of action namely his right over the property, dismissal of suit filed by defendant No.1 and the validity or otherwise of the deed of gift and deed of sale executed by defendants No.2 to 4 in favour of defendants No.5 and 6, dismissed the application by the impugned order. 11. It is settled law for the purpose of consideration of application for request for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC averments made in the plaint alone needs to be looked into and not the defence set up by the defendants. In that view of the matter, no error can be found in the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petition lacks merit and same is dismissed. Pending I.A. does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4