- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28750 RFA No. 1602 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1602 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. RAKSHITHA D/O LATE SMT. JANAKI MURALI W/O GOUTHAM P. DAS AND D/O K.A. NACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO. 60 HAMMOND POND PARKWAY CHESTNUT HILL, MA 02467 USA PRESENTLY RESIDING WITH HER IN-LAWS, HAL 2ND STAGE, II CROSS INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VENKATESH PRAHLAD KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.A. NACHAPPA MURALI S/O LATE K.A. APACHU AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS 2. RISHI CARIYAPPA S/O LATE SMT. JANAKI MURALI AND K.A. NACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 152 3RD MAIN, 9TH CROSS RMV 2ND STAGE Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28750 RFA No. 1602 of 2025 DOLLARS COLONY BANGALORE-560 094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMIT MANDGI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3/2025 IN OS.NO.25427/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.3/25 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by an unsuccessful plaintiff, who is aggrieved by the partial rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC insofar as Schedule B to E properties are concerned. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28750 RFA No. 1602 of 2025 The plaintiff, who is the daughter of late Smt. Janaki Murali and defendant No.1 – K. Nachappa, has instituted the present suit seeking a declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff claims ownership over the suit Schedule 'A' to 'G' properties on the basis of a joint Will executed by her parents, coupled with a subsequent gift deed. The cause of action for filing the present suit is stated to have arisen upon the demise of her mother, Smt. Janaki Murali, on 28.11.2021. The plaintiff also asserts that the revocation of the General Power of Attorney earlier executed by her in favour of her father (defendant No.1/D.W.1) constitutes a subsequent cause of action. On these grounds, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and prays for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties. Additionally, she seeks a mandatory injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 2 from entering - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28750 RFA No. 1602 of 2025 into any joint development agreement or creating third- party interests in the suit properties. 4. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance, filed their respective written statements, and also preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has no cause of action to maintain the present suit. The trial Court, after considering the said application filed by defendant No.2, proceeded to partially reject the plaint. The said order is now under challenge in this proceeding. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for defendants No.1 and 2. 6. The following point arises for consideration in this appeal: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28750 RFA No. 1602 of 2025 i. Whether partial rejection of plaint is permissible under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure? ii. What order? Finding on point no.i 7. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking the relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction in respect of suit Schedule 'A' to 'G' properties. The learned trial Judge, upon examining the documents produced along with the plaint, has arrived at a conclusion that the relief of declaration sought by the plaintiff, insofar as it pertains to suit Schedule 'B' to 'E' properties, which are admittedly owned by the father, defendant No.1, is not maintainable. The reasoning assigned by the learned Judge is that the plaintiff is asserting title over the said properties solely on the basis of a joint Will allegedly executed by her parents, and that such a claim, at least with respect to the properties standing in the name of the father, does not disclose any - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28750 RFA No. 1602 of 2025 enforceable cause of action. Based on this conclusion, the learned Judge has proceeded to allow the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and has partially rejected the plaint in respect of suit Schedule 'B' to 'E' properties. 8. The approach adopted by the learned trial Judge, in partially rejecting the plaint, is legally untenable and contrary to the express scheme of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The said provision contemplates the rejection of the plaint as a whole, where the conditions enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) are satisfied. There is no provision under Order VII Rule 11 that enables a Court to surgically excise or sever parts of the plaint and reject it only in part while allowing the remaining portion to proceed. The very structure and language of Order VII Rule 11 CPC suggest that the power of rejection is to be exercised only where the plaint, taken as a whole, is barred by law or fails to disclose a cause of action. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28750 RFA No. 1602 of 2025 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a consistent line of decisions, including Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 780, and Kamala and Ors. v. K.T. Eshwara Sa and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 661, has categorically held that the power under Order VII Rule 11 is to be exercised based on the averments in the plaint alone, without embarking upon a detailed inquiry into the merits of the case or examining the veracity of the documents. Importantly, the Apex Court has clarified that piecemeal rejection of the plaint is not envisaged under Order VII Rule 11 and is impermissible in law. 10. In the present case, the learned trial Judge has ventured into an assessment of the plaintiff’s documents and has, at the preliminary stage, returned a finding that the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit against the Schedule 'B' to 'E' properties. Such an adjudication touches upon the merits of the plaintiff’s claim, which is impermissible while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11. The trial Court’s act of rejecting the plaint in part, based on a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28750 RFA No. 1602 of 2025 preliminary opinion on title, goes against the well-settled principle that the plaint cannot be dissected or rejected in fragments. Once the plaint discloses a cause of action, even if it is weak or contestable, the matter must proceed to trial. 11. Therefore, the impugned order, to the extent it partially rejects the plaint in respect of Schedule 'B' to 'E' properties, is clearly unsustainable in law. It contravenes the statutory mandate under Order VII Rule 11 and is contrary to the binding precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Judge erred in entertaining and allowing the application in part. The plaint, if at all liable for rejection, must be rejected in entirety conversely, if it discloses any cause of action, the suit must proceed as a whole. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court answers Point No.1 in the negative and holds that partial rejection of the plaint is not permissible under Order VII - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28750 RFA No. 1602 of 2025 Rule 11 CPC. The impugned order, insofar as it relates to partial rejection of the plaint, is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 13. For the foregoing reason, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 3.4.2025 passed on I.A.No.3/2025 in O.S.No.25427/2024 is hereby set aside. Consequently, plaint is restored. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. (iv) Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, without expecting fresh summons at the hands of the trial Court shall appear before the trial Court on 18.08.2025. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29