- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51613 CRP No. 618 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 618 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT.SUPRIYA ACHARYA WIFE OF P. RAGHUNANDAN, DAUGHTER OF LATE RAMA R. ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.350, 4TH 'C' CROSS 5TH BLOCK, 3RD PHASE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. SHIVARAM NAIK M SON OF MARIYAPPA NAIK T AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.77, 80 FEET ROAD, BANASHANAKARI II STAGE BENGALURU - 560 070. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUNDARESH G, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.III IN OS.NO.2082/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51613 CRP No. 618 of 2025 ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 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.V.B.shivakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Sundaresh G., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant in O.S.No.2082/2024 is the revision petitioner challenging the rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) in I.A.No.3 in the said suit. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51613 CRP No. 618 of 2025 3.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.2082/2024 with the following prayer in respect of following properties: PRAYER “WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully pray that this Hon'ble court be pleased to pass the judgment and decree against the defendant by granting the following relief. a. Declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment over the suit A schedule property. b. Consequently, declare that the registered gift deed dated 21/8/2006. registered as document No. KEN-1-19051-2006-07, Stored at CD.No.KEND320, Registered on 22/08/2006, registered at Senior Sub- Registrar, Kengeri, Bengaluru, executed by Smt. Rama R Acharya in favour of defendant in respect of the suit B schedule property, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. c. Consequently, declare that the judgment and decree dated 06/12/2021 passed by the court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in suit OS.No.841/2017, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. d. Grant the Permanent Injunction against the defendant, restraining the defendant, her agents, henchmen, any person claiming under her etc, from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. e. Grant the Mandatory Injunction against the defendant, directing her to remove the construction of compound wall towards eastern side of suit A schedule property and further directing her to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51613 CRP No. 618 of 2025 remove the small shed constructed within the boundary of suit A schedule property. f. Grant such other relief /s as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case and costs of the above suit in the interest of justice and equity.” A SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of site property bearing No.12, Khata No. 157/177, BBMP Khata No.142/117/12, vide official formed in converted Sy.No.51/1, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, duly converted for residential purpose memorandum bearing No.B.DIS/ALN/SR (S) 292/91-92, dated 25/07/1992, issued by Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, situated at Turahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru south Taluk, coming under purview of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike, ward No.184,-Uttarahalli ward, Bengaluru measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet, in all measuring 1200 Square feet and bounded on: East by: Road, West by: Site No.28, North by: Site No. 13, South by: Site No. 11. B SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of site property bearing No. 12, Khata No.157/177, BBMP Khata No.142/117/12, formed in converted Sy.No.51/1, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, duly converted for residential purpose vide official memorandum bearing No.B.DIS/ALN/SR (S) 292/91- 92, dated 25/07/1992, issued by Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, situated at Turahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru south Taluk, coming under purview of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike, ward No.184,-Uttarahalli ward, Bengaluru measuring East to West 40 feet and North - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51613 CRP No. 618 of 2025 to South 30 feet, in all measuring 1200 Square feet and bounded on: East by: Road, West by: Site No.25, North by: Site No.11, South by: Site No. 13 3.2. It is contented that the defendant - Supriya Acharya being the daughter of Rama Acharya is the donee under the Gift Deed dated 21.08.2006. 3.3. In respect of the suit property, there was a suit in O.S.No.841/2007 which came to be decreed on 06.12.2021 holding that the sale deed executed by Rama Acharya in favour of Ranganath is null and void. Therefore, the application is filed stating that by virtue of the Gift Deed, defendant is the absolute owner and therefore, suit relief cannot be granted as the vendor's title itself is set aside by the decree of the Court in O.S.No.841/2007. 3.4. The defendant having contented so, by way of an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, sought for rejection of the plaint. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51613 CRP No. 618 of 2025 3.5. Plaintiff opposed the said application by contending that the decree obtained on 06.12.2021 against Ranganath is an competent decree in view of the fact that Ranganath was no more as on the date of decree and therefore, his sale deed in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff is valid. 3.6. Learned Trial Judge considering the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the application. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court in this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that when the sale deed executed by Ranganath in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff has been held as null and void by the decree dated 06.12.2021, no right, title or interest has passed on to the present plaintiff as against the title of the defendant by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51613 CRP No. 618 of 2025 way of a Gift Deed by Rama Acharya and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent contended that the decree dated 06.12.2021, holding that the sale deed executed by Ranganath in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff cannot be enforced at all as by the time passing of the decree, Ranganath was no more and therefore, said decree is a nullity. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, validity of the gift deed and sale deed are disputed questions which needs to be thrashed out during the trial by placing the necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51613 CRP No. 618 of 2025 9. In other words, matter requires full-fledged trial. Therefore, dismissal of the application filed by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision petition. 10. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38