- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39496 CRP No. 633 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 633 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SANDEEP S/O SOORANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 2. SRI. SOORNAYAKA S/O LATE MALLANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O NERALAGUNE VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BALARAJ A.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H T SRINIVASA NAYAKA S/O LATE H.D. THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O BASAPPANAHATTI VILLAGE JAGLUR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528. 2. G C SATHISHA S/O G.B. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O AMOGHA LAYOUT, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39496 CRP No. 633 of 2024 BANK COLONY, CHITRADURGA CITY - 577 501. 3. MANJUNATH R. S/O RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS LAND DEVELOPER R/O DHARANI, JOGIMATTI ROAD, 5TH CROSS CHITRADURGA CITY - 577 501 4. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA R/P BY CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001 5. THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHITRADURGA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501 6. THE TAHASILADAR CHITRADURGA TALUK OFFICE CHITRADURGA - 577 501 7. THE TAHASILDAR CHALLAKERE TALUK OFFICE, CHALLAKERE - 577 522. 8. THE TAHASILDAR HIRIYUR TALUK OFFICE HIRIYUR - 572 143. 9. THE TAHASILDAR JAGALURU TLAUK OFFICE JAGALUR - 577 528. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39496 CRP No. 633 of 2024 10. THE ADLR CHITRADURGA A.D.L.R. OFFICE CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 11. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA CITY MUNICIPALITY CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 12. THE CHANCELLOR DAVANGERE UNIVERISITY, DAVANGERE - 577 002. 13. THE CHANCELLOR GULBARGA UNIVERSITY GULBARGA - 585 101. 14. THE CHANCELLOR SHIVAMOGGA UNIVERSITY SHIVOMOGA - 577 201. 15. THE DDLR CHITRADURGA DIST, DDLR OFFICE NEAR DC OFFICE CHITRADURGA - 577 501 16. THE DDLR DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577 002. 17. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, OFFICE OF THE DDPI GAYATHRI CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA CITY - 577 501. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39496 CRP No. 633 of 2024 18. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER OFFICE OF B.E.O. CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 19. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER OFFICE OF B.E.O MOLAKALMURU - 577 535 20. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER OFFICE OF B.E.O. CHALLAKERE - 577 522 21. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, OFFICE OF THE DDPI DAVANAGERE CITY - 577 002. 22. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER OFFICE OF B.E.O JAGALUR - 577 528. 23. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PU BOARD NEAR BOYS JUNIOR COLLEGE CHITRADURGA. 24. THE DDPU DAVANAGERE PRE UNIVERSITY, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, AGA FOR C/R1 AND R2 NOTICE TO R3 TO R24 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 08.10.2025) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39496 CRP No. 633 of 2024 12 IN OS NO.211/2023 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA, REJECTING THE IA NO. 12 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a)(b) 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. A.C. Balaraj, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri. R. Shashidhara, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1. 2. Defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the order of rejection of his application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint in O.S. No. 211/2023. 3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39496 CRP No. 633 of 2024 3.1 A suit came to be filed in O.S. No.211/2023 by the respondents against 24 defendants. 3.2 Revision petitioners are the defendants No.1 and 2. 3.3 Suit was filed with the following prayer: To restrain defendants No.1 to 3 from creating any type of sale deeds, agreements, Gift deeds, Mortgage, lien and other any type of alienation documents or registered testamentary for borrowing loans from the Bank Institutions or other Financial Institutions or in favour of third persons in respect of all suit schedule properties by putting undue influence and force with misconceived facts upon defendant No.1's wife Divyasaraswathi (mentally insane person) by any way in any manner by granting decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs. To grant decree of Prohibitory orders under Sec.94(e) of C.P.C. against Govt. officials ie., defendant No.4 to 24 and not to pass any type of Govt. communication orders related to suit schedule properties and education Institutions in favour of defendant No.1. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39496 CRP No. 633 of 2024 3.4 In the suit, it is contended that plaintiffs are the respectable educated persons discharging their duty as a lecturer and Headmaster and working at Borappa Education Institution, Chithudurga District and Davanagere Districts. 3.5 Plaintiffs further submit that they are the sons of brothers-in-law of Late D. Borappa, who had earned very bright name in the education and social welfare field. Smt. H.D. Yashodaramma w/o. Borappa and deceased Borappa during their lifetime owned and acquired several immovable and movable properties and several education institutions which also includes vacant land sites, house properties, gold items, vehicles etc. 3.6 They further contend that Borappa died on 03.03.2018 leaving behind Yashodaramma as his legal heir and only daughter by name Y.B. Divya Saraswathi and granddaughter Jhansi Lakshmi. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39496 CRP No. 633 of 2024 3.7 After the death of Borappa, his wife Yashodaramma succeeded to the entire estate of Borappa. During the lifetime of Borappa, he conducted the marriage of his only daughter Divya Saraswathi to First Defendant Sandeep. 3.8 First Defendant was unemployed at the time of his marriage and in order to upbring first Defendant, permitted first defendant to stay with the family of Borappa in the house of Borappa. First defendant taking advantage of his marriage, started interfering with the personal affairs of estate of Borappa. 3.9 Smt. H.D. Yashodaramma who was managing the affairs of the Education Institute and management of entire properties, during her old age, could not manage the things properly and therefore, first defendant started interfering with the affairs of the Education Institute, which institutions and other estate of Borappa. Therefore, the suit came to be filed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39496 CRP No. 633 of 2024 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. Present defendants are the revision petitioners filed written statement stating that plaintiffs being the sons of brothers-in-law of deceased Borappa, have no independent rights to seek for an order of injunction in respect of the properties which are managed by the wife of Borappa and after her death being managed by daughter of Borappa and the 1st defendant. 5. Defendants No.1 and 2 also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. Plaintiffs opposed the said application. 6. Learned Judge in the Trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the application inter alia held in paragraphs No.10 and 11 as under : "10. In the case on hand the defendants No.1 and 2 have contended that there is no tenable documents placed by the plaintiff as per the allegations. But at this - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39496 CRP No. 633 of 2024 stage this point cannot be considered, since the trial is yet to commence. Further contended that these defendants have not sold any property to anybody. Further contended that suit is barred by Sec.6 of C.P.C and there is no cause of action to file this suit and also no locus standi to file this suit. 11. As could be seen from the entire averment in the annexed affidavit of the application the defendants No.1 and 2 have stated under what ground the Plaint has to be rejected. But the grounds alleged by the defendants No.1 and 2 for rejection of the plaint not tenable, due to the reason that for rejection of the plaint, the entire plaint averments has to be looked into and the cause of action verred in the plains is important to consider the Further Sec.6 speaks about the pecuniary jurisdiction and as averred in the objection since it is suit for injunction as per the valuation slip the plaint is valued accordingly the court fee is paid. But it is not covered within the purview of the grounds described in Order 7 of C.P.C. and further prayed to reject the plaint as the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit, hence this point will be decided along with the merits of the case. Therefore, as rightly objected by the plaintiff in their objections the defendants No.1 and 2 not made out sufficient ground to reject the plaint. Therefore this Plaint not deserves to be rejected under the provision as mentioned by the Defendants No.1 and 2. The plea of the defendants no.1 and 2 not covered under any of the above four clauses. Again the rejection of plaint shall be done only based on the plaint averments - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39496 CRP No. 633 of 2024 but not on the contentions taken by the defendants. Hence this court is of the opinion that the plaint is not liable to be rejected as per Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. In view of the discussion made above I do not hesitate to answer this point under reference in the NEGATIVE." 7. Said Order is assailed in this revision petition by Defendants No.1 and 2. 8. Sri. A.C. Balaraj, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the Revision Petition, vehemently contended that plaintiffs being the sons of the brothers-in-law of Borappa, have no independent rights to maintain the suit and thus, rejection of the application seeking rejection of the plaint has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition and dismiss the suit. 9. Per contra, Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel for the caveator /respondent Nos.1 and 2, supports the impugned order. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39496 CRP No. 633 of 2024 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, dispute has arisen on account of the alleged Will said to have been executed by Yashodharamana being the wife of Borappa in respect of the suit properties. 12. Whether at all Smt. Yashodaramma had right, title or interest in executing the Will or not cannot be decided without recording the evidence. Written statement filed by defendant No.13 is also placed on record, so also the dispute is with regard to the estate left behind by Borappa. 13. Under such circumstances, without considering the merits of the matter, plaint could not have been rejected at the threshold. 14. Reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Judge though not satisfactory, taking note of the result arrived at by the Learned Trial Judge is just and proper, which - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39496 CRP No. 633 of 2024 requires no interference by this Court by exercising the powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. Hence, following the order: ORDER Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45