- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46786 CRP No. 372 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 372 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. K. B. GOVINDARAJU S/O. LATE BETTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT T. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, TARIKERE POST, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH A.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H. N. SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. NANJUNDAIAH, ALSO KNOWN AS THAMMAIAH, 2. RANGASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. NANJUNDAIAH, ALSO KNOWN AS THAMMAIAH, R1 AND R2 ARE R/AT NO.51/4, 2ND MAIN, 8TH CROSS, HSBCS LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46786 CRP No. 372 of 2023 VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040. 3. NANJUNDAIAH ALSO KNOWN AS THAMMAIAH, S/O. LATE BYATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 4. SMT. DODDAMMA W/O. NANJUNDAIAH, ALSO KNOWN AS THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R3 ANDR4 ARE / AT HITTALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130. 5. SMT. SIDDALINGAMMA ALSO KNOWN AS PUTTAMMA, W/O. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 102, 11TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGAR-560 079, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. 6. SMT. PREMA W/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOSAPETE, HULIYURDURGA TOWN, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 123. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46786 CRP No. 372 of 2023 7. SRI. M. K. ASHOKA S/O. KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AT ARAVIND INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, GIRIGOWDARAPALYA GATE, MADDURU ROAD, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL-572 130. AND ALSO NO. 149, 2ND MAIN ROAD, HEALTH LAYOUT, VISWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NUTHAN GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRISH KUMAR C.S., ADVOCATE FOR CR1 AND R2) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL SAUCES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.06.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.103/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KUNIGAL DISMISSING THE IA NO.VI FILED UNDER ORDER 7 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46786 CRP No. 372 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Mahesh A.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Nuthan Gowda for and Sri. Girish Kumar C.S., learned counsel for respondents. 2. Fifth defendant in O.S. No.103/2022 is the revision petitioner challenging the rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Order dated 02.06.2023 by Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC Kunigal. 3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present revision petition are as under : 3.1 A suit came to be filed in OS No.103/2022 by the contesting respondents being the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession. 3.2 It is contented in the plaint that the sale deed executed by the second defendant Smt. Doddama in favour of the fifth defendant is null and void and not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46786 CRP No. 372 of 2023 binding on the share of the plaintiff as the second defendant had no exclusive right to alienate the property in favour of fifth defendant. 3.3 Plaintiffs also contended that after the death of the father of the plaintiffs, the mother applied for the grant from the Government and based on the said application, grant has been made. Therefore the second defendant contended that it is the individual grant and when she is alive, alienation made by her cannot be questioned by the children being the children who are the plaintiffs and oppose the suit by filing written statement. 3.4 An application for rejection of the plaint came to be filed on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation as well as there is no cause of action to the suit as the property was individual property of the second defendant. 3.5 Learned Trial Judge explained the objections of the plaintiff on the said application and after hearing the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46786 CRP No. 372 of 2023 parties, dismissed the said application inter alia holding in paragraphs No.11 to 15 as under: 11. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and to declare that sale deed dated 10/01/1994 executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.5 in respect of the suit schedule property is not binding on the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No.5 from alienating the suit schedule properties in favour of third parties. 12. It is the contention of the defendant No.5 that the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.92/P1 measuring 4 acres situated at Hithalahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk was granted by the Government of Karnataka in favour of the defendant No.2 by name Doddamma D/o. Thimmaiah but not as a member of family of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, 3 and 4, as such the suit property is self acquired property of defendant No.2 who has sold the same to defendant No.5. It is significant to note that whether the grant made by the Government in favour of the defendant No.2 on the personal capacity of defendant No.2 or for the benefit of family can only be adjudicated through full fledged trial. Further the contention of defendant No.5 that this court is not having jurisdiction to decide whether the grant was made to individual or to the joint family. But it is well settled principle of law that it is Civil Court which is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46786 CRP No. 372 of 2023 having jurisdiction whether the grant was made in the individual capacity or to the benefit of joint family and whether the kimmath was paid from the individual earnings or from the joint family earnings can only be adjudicated under trial by the Civil Court only. 13. It is the specific contention of the defendant No.5 that the suit will not disclose of cause of action which was denied by the plaintiffs. It is significant to note that when we meticulously gone through the para No.7 and 12 of the plaint which clearly reveals that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 4 are in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till date. All of a sudden, during the 1st week of April 2022, the defendant No.5 came near the suit schedule property and started to interfere with the peaceful possession of the property alleging that the said property is alienated by the defendant No.2 in his favour vide the registered sale deed and consequently in the 3rd week of April 2022, when the defendants refused to effect partition, which clearly reveals the cause of action was took place during 1st week of April 2022 and consequently. Further it is significant to note that the defendant No.5 himself has produced and relied on the decision reported in AIR 2012 SC 3912, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court of India clearly held that the pleadings has to be decided only and on the basis of plaint pleadings the cause of action should be looked into and further held that pleas taken in written statement are immaterial. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46786 CRP No. 372 of 2023 14. Further it is the contention of the defendant No.5 that the court fee valued under Sec.35(2) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act is not correct and the court fee paid at Rs.200/- is insufficient under law. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 4 were not in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property when date of sale date i.e., 10/01/1994, as such the plaintiffs ought to have valued the suit as per Section 35(1) of KCF and SV Act. It is pertinent to note that it is already discussed supra that while considering the application filed under order 7 Rule 11 it is the plaint pleadings alone should be considered. In the present case the plaintiffs clearly pleaded that the suit schedule property is joint family property of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 4 and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. As such when their pleadings clearly reveals that they are in joint possession, the plaintiffs correctly valued the suit as per Section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and paid requisite court fee of Rs.200/-. 15. Further it is the contention of the defendant No.5 that the suit is barred by limitation as the sale deed executed on 10/01/1994 and the present suit filed in the year 2022. It is significant to note that as per the pleadings of the plaintiffs they came to know about registered sale deed only in the third week of April 2022 when the defendant No.5 came near the suit schedule property stating that he has purchased the suit schedule - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46786 CRP No. 372 of 2023 property from defendant No.2. As such the suit is well within limitation. Moreover the question of limitation is again mixed question of facts and law. As such the same cannot be considered at this stage and with great respect the decisions relied by the defendant No.5 are not applicable to the facts of present case in hand. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, fifth defendant has filed the present revision petition. 5. Sri. A.S. Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that during the lifetime of the mother, plaintiffs had no right to challenge the sale deed executed by the second defendant-mother of the plaintiffs in favour of fifth defendant in view of the fact that grant was an individual grant in the name of the mother. 6. He would also contend that the court fee paid is improper and on that score also the plaint is to be rejected. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46786 CRP No. 372 of 2023 7. Per contra counsel for the respondent supports the impugned Order. 8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the suit is one for partition and declaration that the sale deed executed by second defendant in favour of fifth defendant is not binding on the plaintiff. 10. In such suits, the question of limitation cannot be decided at the threshold and reject the plaint as it is a mixed question of law and facts. 11. Further, the nature of the property according to the plaintiffs is a joint family property as after the death of the father of the plaintiffs who is the husband of second defendant, second defendant applied for the grant and land was granted in favour of the second defendant, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46786 CRP No. 372 of 2023 whether an individual grant or for and on behalf of the joint family is a matter that has to be thrashed out after the full-fledged trial. 12. So also when the plaintiffs claim that they are the members of the joint family and they have a share in the property, valuation as is made in the plaint for the present would be sufficient. 13. Ultimately if the second defendant is to establish that it is the individual grant and nothing to do with the joint family, then suit will be dismissed wherein not only the defendants can seek for imposition of appropriate costs but also exemplary costs besides requesting the Court to levy the necessary Court fee and recover the same as arrears of land revenue from the plaintiff. 14. Suffice to say that the material on record would be sufficient enough whereby trial has to proceed as the issues raised by the fifth defendant cannot be decided by - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46786 CRP No. 372 of 2023 holding a mini trial and plaint cannot be rejected at threshold. 15. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference. 16. Accordingly, following order: ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) The suit shall be expedited. The Trial Court shall expedite the suit as early as possible and dispose of it as early as possible. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50