- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48700 CRP No. 406 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 406 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: SYED TABREZ S/O LATE SYED KABIR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT 3852, KARUNAPURA MAIN ROAD GANDHI NAGARA, N.R. MOHALLA MYSURU - 577 424. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MADRASA - E- QUANTWAL ISLAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AFROZ PASHA @ APPU S/O LATE MOHAMMED AMOR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT D NO.2240, L-35 SAWADY ROAD, LASHKAR MOHALLA R/AT MYSURU - 577 424. 2. AMIR S/O WAHAB KHAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT TIPPU HALL NAWAB SAHEB THALEEM NO.2240/L-35, LAKSHAR MOHALLA MYSORE - 577 425. &RESPONDENTS (BY MS. AADYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.V. VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE FOR R1) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48700 CRP No. 406 of 2023 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.8 IN OS NO.605/2019 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU REJECTING THE IA NO.8 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. 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.Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Miss. Aadya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.M.V.Vedachala, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. Present revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.605/2019 on the file of X Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru with the following prayer: <Wherefore, it is prayed before this Hon9ble Court to kindly a. Set aside the order passed by Xth Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Mysore in IAs 8, under order 7 rule 11 of CPC, in OS No.605/2019 vide dated 24.03.2023 at Annexure-A and appreciate the prayer made in interlocutory application No.8, same at Annexure-E - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48700 CRP No. 406 of 2023 filed by the petitioner herein under order VII Rule 11 for the dismissal of the suit with the prayer of partition. b. Pass any other order or relief as this Hon9ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and good conscience.= 3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed by respondent No.1 with the following prayer in respect of the following property: PRAYER Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that the Hon9ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendant for; a. For a direction, directing the defendants to place the plaintiff in possession of the schedule premises so as to enable the plaintiff to exercise the right of re-entry; b. Further direction, directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month by way - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48700 CRP No. 406 of 2023 of damages for his unauthorized use and occupation from the date of suit till the defendant vacates and handover the vacant possession of the schedule premises in favour of the plaintiff. c. For court costs and such other relief/s as the Hon9ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.= SCHEDULE The shop No.2 situated in the property bearing No.2240, L-35, Sawday Road, Lashkar Mohalla, Mysore, measuring East to West 15 feet and North to South 13 feet. 3.2. Afroz Pasha @ Appu is the Secretary of Madrassa-E-Quantwal Islam. He claims that the suit property is the property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 has taken the schedule premises from the plaintiff on lease by executing a lease deed for the purpose of running a business on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and he had paid sum of Rs.60,000/- as security deposit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48700 CRP No. 406 of 2023 3.3. Defendant No.1 executed lease deed in favour of the plaintiff and rent payable as on the date of filing the suit is Rs.2,500/- per month and lease period commenced from 01.01.2014 and ended on 30.11.2014. 3.4. It is further contented that the defendant failed to pay the rent up to December, 2018 and despite repeated demands, there was no compliance and therefore, suit for ejectment came to be filed with the aforesaid prayer. 4. Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that plaintiff is a great liar. 5. It has been contented that defendant No.1 had been lured into payment of rentals by the plaintiff under false document and defendant No.1 has realized that Madrassa-E-Quantwal Islam has approached the defendants and informed him that the rents need not be paid to the plaintiff. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48700 CRP No. 406 of 2023 6. It is also contented in the written statement that the suit is not maintainable in view of the fact that 8Almighty Allah9 is the owner of the property and property has been given in Waqf and managed by Masjid-e-Azam Madarasa. 7. Along with the written statement, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter 8CPC9 for short) is filed supported by the affidavit of defendant No.1 wherein he has stated that plaintiff is not the owner of the property and by virtue of the official Gazette Notification No.KSBW/REG/59/MYS/2012-12 dated 09.04.2013, the suit property has been notified and declared as Waqf property. Therefore, contented that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendants. 8. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a detailed written objection. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48700 CRP No. 406 of 2023 9. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties, raised necessary points and in paragraph Nos.14 to 18 has held as under and dismissed the application: <14. Heard and perused the application and the materials placed before this court along with plaint averments. In the background of all these facts and circumstances now, the contention of defendant No.1 is that, the suit is not maintainable on the ground that, the plaintiff is not the owner of suit schedule property. Now, it is relevant to peruse the documents furnished by the plaintiff along with the plaint and the documents marked by PW1. A xerox copy of rent agreement dated 01.01.2014 had been furnished by the plaintiff. On perusal of the same, it appears that, Afroz Pasha has executed a rent agreement in favour of the defendant Syed Tabrez. Further, on perusal of the written statement, the defendant had admitted that, he unknowingly entered into a rent agreement as mentioned above and he was paying rent to the plaintiff. 15. When such being the case, where the defendant once admitted the landlord and tenant relationship and rent agreement then, he cannot question the ownership of the plaintiff. Here it is relevant to refer Sec 116 of Indian Evidence Act, which says as follows: Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession:- No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48700 CRP No. 406 of 2023 possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given. Thus, he cannot questioned the ownership of the plaintiff being the tenant and occupying the possession of the immovable property by virtue of rent agreement. 16. It is well settled law that, in order to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. the court shall consider the plaint averments and not written statement of the defendant. 17. Observing that rejection of plaint is exercise of drastic power which terminates civil action at the threshold. Apex Court in P.V.Gururaj Reddy Vs. P.Neeradha Reddy, (2015) 8 SCC 331 has held as follows in para 5. "5. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the avernments in the plaint that have to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the avernments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial". - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48700 CRP No. 406 of 2023 18. As per the principles of the above said decision it is very much clear that the application filed for rejection of plaint, the court has to look into only the plaint averments and not the contentions taken by the defendant in the written statement or in the application. Having considered all these facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the application filed by the defendant is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Negative.= 10. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 is before this Court, in this revision. 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contented that Section 85 of the Waqf Act, bars the filing of the suit before the Trial Court and without looking into the said bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court as is contemplated under Section 85 of the Waqf Act, entertaining the suit by the Trial Court is per se illegal and sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48700 CRP No. 406 of 2023 13. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of both the sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, in the case on hand, according to the defendants, suit property is the Waqf property managed by Masjid-e-Azam Madarasa whereas the plaintiff is Madrassa-E-Quantwal Islam. 15. Whether the suit property is one and the same which is notified under the aforesaid notification and is under the management of Masjid-e-Azam Madarasa or Madrassa-E-Quantwal Islam cannot be gone into by the Trial Court inasmuch as there is a regular lease deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. 16. Further, rentals are also being paid regularly. Even in the affidavit, the defendant No.1 it has specifically stated that he has been lured by the plaintiff by showing false documents. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48700 CRP No. 406 of 2023 17. Such a plea raised by the revision petitioner cannot be the subject matter of an enquiry while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 18. When there is an admitted fact that the defendants are tenants under the plaintiff and in the lease deed, it is not mentioned that the suit property is a Waqf property, Section 85 of the Waqf Act, has no application to the facts of the case. 19. Ultimately, if the suit property is the waqf property, the concerned Masjid-e-Azam Madarasa, is entitled to take necessary action against the plaintiff and defendants. 20. For the purpose of the plaint relief, the question of applying Section 85 of the Waqf Act would not arise in the way of the very admission by defendant No.1 that he has paid the rents to the plaintiff and in pursuance of the lease deed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48700 CRP No. 406 of 2023 21. As such, dismissal of the application by the Trial Court is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision. 22. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44