- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48570 CRP No. 481 of 2022 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.481 OF 2022 (IO) BETWEEN: SHRI B. S. NAGESH S/O LATE SHRI SAMBASHIVAIAH, PRESENT AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, PARTNER OF M/S. BHAVIKATTE DEVELOPERS NO.164/2012-13, SIRA ROAD, NEAR BHAVIKATTE KALYANA MANTAPA, TUMKURU TOWN-571 223. &PETITIONER (BY SRI PRADEEP FOR SRI SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE PEDDAIAH, W/O LAKSHMAN, PRESENT AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT SIDDARAMMA NAGARA, BHOVIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI, OORUKERE POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 223. 2. VENKATARAMU D/O LATE PEDDAIAH, W/O LAKSHMAN, PRESENT AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT BHOVIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI, OORUKERE POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 223. NOW R/AT GARUVADEVARAHALLY, WARD NO.18, RMC POST, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48570 CRP No. 481 of 2022 MADUGIRI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 233. 3. CHANDRAIAH S/O. LATE PEDDAIAH, PRESENT AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 4. SMT. THIMMAKKA W/O LATE PEDDAIAH, PRESENT AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT BHOVIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI, OORUKERE POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 223. 5. D. SHIVANNA S/O. LATE DODDEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT BIDARE HATTI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-571 123, NOW R/AT TUDA LAYOUT, SIRA GATE, TUMKUR TOWN-572 123. 6. SMT. CHODA RATHNAMMA W/O LATE T. V. MUNIGANGAIAH, PRESENT AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KAALIDASA NAGARA, SIRA GATE, TUMKUR TOWN-572 223. 7. S. NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE SADASHIVAIAH, PRESENT AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT OORUKERE VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 233. &RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48570 CRP No. 481 of 2022 (BY SMT.SWATHI R. BHAT, FOR SMT.JAYANTHI.R, ADVOCATES FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.01.2023 NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2022 PASSED IN O.S.No.1020/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, REJECTING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Defendant No.7 is the revision petitioner being the purchaser of the portion of the suit property, challenging the validity of the dismissal order dated 23.08.2022 passed on the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.1020/2014 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru. 2. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48570 CRP No. 481 of 2022 3. Plaintiff/first respondent filed the suit against the remaining respondents and the revision petitioner with the following prayer in respect of following immovable property. <Wherefore under the above said circumstances plaintiff is very respectfully prays before this Hon9ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass judgment and decree against the defendants as follows: (i) For partition and separate possession of plaintiff9s 1/4th share over the suit schedule property and further order that the alleged transactions of conveyance deeds if any created between the defendants in collusively is not binding upon the plaintiff9s 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. (ii) for mesne profit under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC, (iii) for cost and such other reliefs as the Hon9ble Court deems to fit grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of the justice and equity.= SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY That the land bearing Sy.No.93, totally measuring 03-16.00 guntas, out of which 02-00 acres, assessed at Rs.3.74, situated at Annenahally village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, bounded by: East: Property of Muniyappa9s sons, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48570 CRP No. 481 of 2022 West: Property of Nagakumar, North: Property of Rajanna, South: Govt. Gomala.= 4. Plaintiff laid the claim on the ground that common prepositus was one Ramaiah, who had two sons and a daughter. Smt.Peddaka being the daughter was having share in the suit property. Plaintiff being the daughter of one of the sons Peddaiah, is having the share in the suit property and therefore sought for partition and separate possession of her share in respect of the suit property. 5. Defendant No.7 entered appearance filed written statement denying the plaint averments and maintained that as on the date of sale, plaintiff did not have any right, title or interest in respect of the suit property and by way of amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, plaintiff is now trying to lay claim on the suit property which is impermissible and sought for dismissal of the suit, inter alia filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. 6. The same was opposed by the plaintiff. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48570 CRP No. 481 of 2022 7. Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the application filed by the seventh defendant inter alia holding in paragraphs 21 to 23 as under: <21. At this juncture this court places reliance to provision of law i.e., Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is relevant and the same is extracted below: Rule 11 under Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 delineates certain grounds under which the Court shall reject a Plaint. These are: A) where it does not disclose a cause of action; B) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the Plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; C) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the Plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the Plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; D) where the Suit appears from the statement in the Plaint to be barred by any law; The above cited provision of law is aptly applicable to the present case. Defendant No.7 seeking for the rejection of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48570 CRP No. 481 of 2022 plaint, on a ground that the suit is barred under Sec.6 A of the Hindu Succession Act (amendment 2005). 22. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India AIR 2013 SCC 3912, held that the court has to scrutinize the averments/please in the plaint. At that stage, case of the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant as the application for rejectment of plaint has to be decided only on the averments of the plaint. The above cited provision of law is aptly applicable to the present case. For rejection of the plaint the cannons of principles and also the provisions of law R/w ratio relied upon by this court it is necessary and essential that, only the plaint averments shall have to be close scrutiny, number of documents which could be field on behalf of defendant No.7, as per the memo as explained by this court, as per numbers of revenue documents and sale deeds, however the said documents filed by the defendant No.7 and also the written statement averments totally irrelevant in the application filed under order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. 23. Moreover, by virtue of the plaint averments filed by the plaintiff herself contends that, the registered partition dated 02-08-2003, partition was effected in respect of suit schedule property, as such the suit schedule property was fallen to the share of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2. That her father was demise dated 22-12-2003, pursuant his demise, his share in respect of suit schedule property, in the absence of any registered convinced deed it - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48570 CRP No. 481 of 2022 became ancestral and joint family property for plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2, hence it is necessary that in respect of her share the defendant No.1 and 2 cannot execute any convinced deed, moreover, contention as taken by defendant No.7 it really require full pledged trial so as to ascertain the illusion cause of action, if the suit is barred by law of limitation amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. Hence, for the upshot reasons and discussions, this court answers point No.1 In the Negative.= 8. Being aggrieved by the same, seventh defendant is before this Court in this revision. 9. Sri Pradeep, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the approach of the Trial Court in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the purchaser of a portion of the suit property has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision. 10. Per contra, Ms.Swathi R. Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff supports the impugned judgment. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48570 CRP No. 481 of 2022 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff is claiming right under one Peddaiah who is the son of common prepositus. 13. Whether at all plaintiff had the right in the suit property or not cannot be decided at the time of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. Prima facie, plaintiff has been able to make out a case that she is having a right over the suit property. Matter requires full fledged trial to thrash out the real controversy between the parties. 15. Thus, the Trial Court rejecting the application by taking note of the relevant provisions of law including the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited at the Bar as referred to supra thus does not require any interference by this Court in this revision. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48570 CRP No. 481 of 2022 16. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) However all the contentions are kept open to be urged in the trial, in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60