- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44732 CRP No. 76 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 76 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C.V. RAJESH S/O C V KRISHNA RAO, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.3-6/6, DRDO TOWNSHIP, C V RAMAN NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 093 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.KUMAR R S/O RAJANNA, AGED 45 YEARS, 2. SRI MURUGESH R S/O RAJANNA, AGED 41 YEARS, 3. SRI MANJUNATH R S/O RAJANNA, AGED 36 YEARS, 4. SRI RAJANNA S/O LATE MUNIDEVAPPA, AGED 70 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44732 CRP No. 76 of 2022 R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT NO.84, SRIRAMPURA MAIN ROAD, NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPLE, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU - 560 064 5. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAKRUPA, BENGALURU - 560 020 6. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARKRUPA, BENGALURU - 560 020 7. SMT SAKKUBAI W/O A S PRAKASH, AGED 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.9/2, 2ND CROSS, AJJAPPA BLOCK, R T NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032 8. SRI A M P THEJASWI S/O LATE A S MANJUNATH, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.1/14, 11TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, SAMPANGIRAMANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027 9. SMT JANAKI W/O LATE BALACHANDRAN, AGED 60 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44732 CRP No. 76 of 2022 R/AT NO.339, H M G COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 023 10. SMT GEETHA SACHINDRAN W/O SACHINDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.W-29, BASAPPA GARDEN, PIPELINE C MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003 11. SRI PRABHAKAR B K S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH R, R/AT NO.29, 1ST FLOOR, BASAPPA GARDEN PIPELINE, C MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003 12. SMT KOUSALYA MADHUSUDANA W/O N V MADHUSUDANA, AGED 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.45, 1ST MAIN, RBI COLONY, HEBBAL AGRICULTURAL FARM, BENGALURU - 560 024 13. SMT ROOPA THONTHANAHAL W/O SHIVAKUMAR THONTHANHAL, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.284/H, 5TH BLOCK, 10TH MAIN, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 010 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44732 CRP No. 76 of 2022 14. SRI K V THANDAVESHWARA S/O LATE VRUSHABENDRAPPA, AGED 81 YEARS, R/AT NO.2118, D BLOCK, SHAHAKARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 010 15. SMT T RATHNAMMA W/O LATE B GURUSIDDAPPA SETTEE, AGED 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.117, SFS, 4TH B CROSS, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064 16. SMT VEENA MADHUSUDHAN W/O MADHUSUDHAN B L, AGED 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, AKSHYA, 1ST CROSS, CENTRAL EXCUSE LAYOUT, RMV 2ND STAGE, BHOOPASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 094 17. SMT H SHARADHA W/O K S KRISHNAPPA, AGED 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, NARAYANARAO BUILDING, MAHALAKSHMI STORE, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 024 18. SMT BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O M MURTHY, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, ISHANI, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44732 CRP No. 76 of 2022 MUNIHANUMAIAH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT, NAGASHETTYHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 094 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R. RAVIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. RAMESH BABU R., ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI. AKSHAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6 VIDE ORDER DATED 04.03.2022, NOTICE TO R6 TO R18 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2022 PASSED ON I.A. IN OS.NO.3963/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, REJECTING THE I.A. 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. Prakash M.H, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 2. Defendant No.7 being the purchaser of the portion of the suit property as a site is a revision petitioner challenging - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44732 CRP No. 76 of 2022 the dismissal of the application filed by him under order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S No.3963/2021 by order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. 3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition as under:- 3.1 A suit in O.S No.3963/2021 came to be filed in respect of the following immovable property hereinafter referred to as the suit property for partition and possession:- "All the peace of agriculture property bearing Sy. No.53, situated at Sreerampura village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru measuring 1 acre 19 guntas bounded by: East by: Land belongs to Munishami and Kandappa West by : Land belongs to Sanjeevachari North by : Land belongs to K.V.Byregowda South by : Land belongs to Byregowda". - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44732 CRP No. 76 of 2022 4. Defendant No.7 claims to be the purchaser of a site in an unregistered layout having regard to the fact that the entire area was notified for the acquisition by the BDA. 5. Defendant No.7 maintains that such a suit filed by the plaintiff is a collusive suit and only to deny the legitimate rights of the revision petitioner, sought for rejection of the plaint after filing written statement before the Trial Court. 6. Learned Trial Judge after considering the rival contentions rejected the application on the ground that the relief cannot be granted as the matter requires recording of evidence. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, Defendant No.7 is before this Court. 8. Sri. Prakash M.H, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the approach of the Trial Court in rejecting the application seeking rejection of the plaint has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44732 CRP No. 76 of 2022 9. He also contended that when there is a valid registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.7, wherein the father of the plaintiff has executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.7, now the son of the vendor of the plaintiff filing a suit is per se not maintainable and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents supports the impugned judgment. 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, admittedly defendant No.7 has purchased portion of the suit property that too with the boundaries. 13. Admittedly there is no layout plan annexed to the sale deed. Who made the layout in the suit land which is a joint family property and whether father of plaintiff alone had right to sell the individual sites or not is a question that remains to be adjudicated in the trial after parties adduce the evidence. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44732 CRP No. 76 of 2022 14. Whether at all, father of the plaintiff had an exclusive right to divide the suit property into the sites and then sell it in favour of the people like Defendant No.7 or not, is also a question which is also to be thrashed out in the trial. 15. When there is a triable issue in a matter of this nature, rejection of the plaint at the threshold based on the sale deed said to have been executed by one of the parties that too in an unregistered layout cannot be countenanced in law. 16. Therefore, dismissal of the application seeking rejection of plaint is just and proper and needs no interference. 17. . Hence, following:- ORDER Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83