- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1346 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: MS. ANNE DOMINIC DAUGHTER OF SAMUEL JAMES DOMINIC WIFE OF JAMES CARVALHO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT 2456 HERMOSA DR TEMPE AZ 85282 …APPELLANT (BY SRI/SMT.KARISMA NAGHNOOR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PRASHANT DHARMASINH POPAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR.SAMUEL JAMES DOMINIC SON OF LATE J.SAMUEL AGED ABOUT 100 YEARS 2. MS.MERTLE STEVENS WIFE OF ANTHONY STEVENS AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3. MR.ANTHONY STEVENS SON OF MR.STEVENS AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 4. MS.ANGELINA STEVENS DAUGHTER OF MR.ANTHONY STEVENS AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 5. MS.AMY STEVENS DAUGHTER OF MR.ANTHONY STEVENS AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT FLAT 401/4TH FLOOR 17, ROYAL VILLA 5TH MAIN ROAD HRBR LAYOUT 2ND BLOCK KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJAY SUGUMARAN, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN OS NO.6903/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE PLAINT FILED U/O VII RULE 11 OF CPC FOR WANT OF CAUSE OF ACTION AND ETC. 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 present appeal is filed by the appellant–plaintiff assailing the order passed by the Trial Court, whereby the plaint came to be rejected on the ground that the plaintiff - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 lacks locus standi to maintain the suit, as she does not possess any legal right over the suit schedule property, which is admittedly the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 – her father. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff, who is the daughter of defendant No.1, instituted a suit seeking a relief of permanent injunction against defendant No.2, her sister and the latter's family members. The relief is founded on the assertion that defendant No.1 has executed a Will dated 11.04.2001, under which he has bequeathed the suit schedule property equally to the plaintiff and defendant No.2. 4. The plaintiff has further alleged that defendant No.1, who is nearly 100 years old, is entirely under the influence and control of defendant No.2. It is her case that defendant No.2 has restricted the plaintiff’s access to their - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 father and is attempting to interfere with his financial assets, including fixed deposits. The plaintiff has also averred that defendant No.2 and her family members are attempting to alienate the suit schedule property in violation of the Will and the intentions of defendant No.1. Based on these pleadings, the plaintiff has sought an order of injunction restraining defendant Nos.2 to 5 from interfering with the suit schedule property. 5. Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 5 entered appearance. Defendant No.1, through independent counsel, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. The application, which runs into approximately 115 paragraphs, contended inter alia that the plaintiff has herself acknowledged that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant No.1, and therefore, she has no enforceable right to seek injunctive relief. The Trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 No.1, allowed the application and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and the plaintiff lacks locus standi to maintain the suit. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff, learned counsel for defendant No.1, and learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 to 5. Perused the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 7. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC to reject the plaint in the facts and circumstances of the present case?" Findings on the above point:- 8. Before this Court proceeds to examine the impugned order, it is considered appropriate to first take note of the material averments in the plaint. At - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff has unequivocally admitted that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, having acquired both movable and immovable assets in his name. Further, at paragraph 9, the plaintiff has averred that defendant No.1 executed a testamentary instrument—a Will dated 11.04.2001 under which the suit schedule property is to be equally divided between the plaintiff and defendant No.2. 9. To demonstrate the existence of cause of action, the plaintiff has elaborately narrated the conduct of defendant No.2 in paragraphs 15 and 16. In paragraphs 17 to 19, the plaintiff has alleged that defendant No.2 has been frequently shifting the residence of defendant No.1, with the intention of denying the plaintiff access to her father. These averments indicate the plaintiff’s concern about being systematically excluded and alienated from her father. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 10. At paragraph 24, the plaintiff pleads that she had met defendant No.2 and raised serious objections over the alleged removal of crucial documents, including original title deeds pertaining to the suit schedule property and the original Will of defendant No.1. Further, in paragraph 28, the plaintiff specifically alleges that defendant No.3 is attempting to bring in prospective purchasers with an intention to sell the suit schedule property. The plaintiff categorically contends that defendant No.2 has no saleable interest in the suit schedule property. 11. In paragraph 29, the plaintiff further alleges that defendant No.2 has cut off all communication between her and defendant No.1 and denied her access to him. At paragraph 13, the plaintiff pleads that even the whereabouts of her father are being concealed. She expresses a grave apprehension that defendant No.2, taking advantage of the advanced age and vulnerability of defendant No.1, may exercise undue influence and meddle - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 with his property. On the strength of these detailed and specific pleadings, the plaintiff has sought a decree of permanent injunction not against defendant No.1 but against defendant Nos.2 to 5 from dealing with the suit schedule property and creating third-party rights. 12. In order to appreciate the nature of relief sought, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the prayer made in the plaint, which reads as follows: " Wherefore, the plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree; (a) Of Permanent Injunction restraining the 2nd defendant and the 3rd to 5th defendants from directly or indirectly, transacting on the schedule property or creating any third-party rights, or encumbrances during the lifetime of the 1st defendant; (b) Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 13. Upon a comprehensive examination of the pleadings and the relief sought in the plaint, it is evident - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 that the prayer for perpetual injunction is not directed against defendant No.1,the absolute owner of the suit schedule property but is instead sought solely against defendant No.2 and her family members. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiff, not with the intent to question the title or ownership of defendant No.1, but to restrain defendant No.2 from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property by misrepresenting herself as having authority to act on behalf of defendant No.1. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that defendant No.1 had, at an undisputed point in time, executed a Will dated 11.04.2001, wherein he had expressed his intention to bequeath the suit schedule property equally to both his daughters namely plaintiff and defendant No.2. It is in this context that the plaintiff apprehends interference and possible alienation by defendant No.2 in derogation of the said testamentary arrangement and in contravention of the wishes of defendant No.1. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 14. It is true that, as a legal proposition, a daughter cannot ordinarily maintain a suit for injunction against her father who is the absolute owner of the property, unless she has an established and enforceable legal right. However, in the present case, a deeper analysis of the plaint discloses that the plaintiff does not seek to injunct defendant No.1 nor does she claim any present right, title, or interest in the suit schedule property. Rather, her grievance is directed against the actions of defendant No.2, who, according to the plaintiff, is exercising undue influence over their aged father and is attempting to deal with the property contrary to his earlier declared intentions as manifested in the Will. The prayer for injunction, therefore, is premised on the apprehension that defendant No.2, under the guise of acting on behalf of defendant No.1, may unlawfully alienate the property or create third-party interests to the plaintiff’s detriment. Thus, the cause of action as pleaded discloses a bona fide apprehension of unlawful interference by defendant No.2, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 and the suit cannot be rejected at the threshold solely on the ground that the plaintiff has no present legal title. 15. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 attempted to persuade this Court by submitting that defendant No.1, despite his advanced age, remains mentally competent and is managing his affairs independently and voluntarily. However, the core issue that arises for consideration is whether the actions and decisions purportedly taken by defendant No.1 are indeed independent and voluntary, or whether they are being influenced or dictated by defendant No.2 and her family members, as alleged by the plaintiff. This Court is of the view that such disputed questions of fact relating to the mental state, independence, and volition of defendant No.1 cannot be adjudicated without the benefit of oral evidence and cross- examination. It would be appropriate for the Trial Court to secure the presence of defendant No.1 and record his statement in order to ascertain whether he is in full - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 possession of his faculties and whether he is voluntarily managing his affairs or is under coercion or undue influence. 16. If, upon such examination, the Trial Court finds that defendant No.1 is fully capable of taking independent decisions and does not support the allegations levelled by the plaintiff, then continuation of the suit may not be warranted. However, if the Court forms a prima facie opinion that defendant No.1 is infirm, vulnerable, and possibly under the control of defendant No.2, then the matter certainly requires a full-fledged trial, affording the plaintiff an opportunity to substantiate her allegations. These are mixed questions of law and fact that require detailed scrutiny and cannot be summarily dismissed. 17. Unfortunately, the learned Trial Judge appears to have been swayed by the singular fact that defendant No.1 is the undisputed owner of the suit schedule property, and therefore proceeded to reject the plaint on - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 the premise that the plaintiff, as a daughter, cannot maintain a suit for injunction. In doing so, the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the nuanced nature of the pleadings and the true scope of the relief sought. The suit is not one seeking declaration or partition, nor is it predicated on an assertion of ownership by the plaintiff. The essence of the suit is to prevent unauthorized and potentially fraudulent acts by defendant No.2, who is alleged to be misusing her proximity to their aged father to deal with the property in a manner inconsistent with his past expressed intentions. Therefore, invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action is clearly misplaced. 18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and reflects a perverse and superficial reading of the pleadings. The rejection of the plaint at the threshold, without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to lead evidence on the factual - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 assertions made, is unsustainable in law and warrants interference. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the point formulated above is answered in the Affirmative. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded for trial. Accordingly, defendant No.1 is granted liberty to file his written statement, if not already filed. Upon completion of pleadings, the Trial Court shall proceed to frame appropriate issues arising from the pleadings of the parties. Considering the specific allegations made by the plaintiff regarding the mental and physical condition of defendant No.1, and her apprehension that he is under the undue influence of defendant No.2, the Trial Court is at liberty to summon defendant No.1 and examine him in person for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether he is in a sound and disposing state of mind and is capable of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 taking independent decisions regarding his affairs and properties. 21. In light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds that the plaintiff need not be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence. In order to address the core issue raised by the plaintiff namely, the mental and physical condition of defendant No.1,it would be appropriate to permit defendant No.1 to lead limited evidence before the Trial Court for the purpose of establishing his present mental alertness, physical stability, and capacity to act independently. 22. Should defendant No.1, upon such limited examination, satisfy the Trial Court that he is in a sound and disposing state of mind, and is managing his affairs of his own volition without being under the influence or control of defendant No.2 or any other person, the apprehensions raised by the plaintiff may stand dispelled. However, if the Trial Court, upon examining defendant - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 No.1, is of the prima-facie view that he is not in a position to make independent decisions or is susceptible to external influence, then the suit shall proceed to trial, wherein the plaintiff shall be granted full opportunity to lead evidence in support of her claims. 23. With these above observations, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed in O.S.No.6903/2024 by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15), Bengaluru on I.A.No.III is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the plaint is restored. (iii) Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 04.08.2025 without - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25450 RFA No. 1346 of 2025 expecting further summons at the hands of the Trial Court. (iv) Liberty is reserved to defendant No.1 to seek Commission for recording his evidence and the learned Judge subject to satisfaction, may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (v) Defendant No.1 is hereby restrained from alienating the suit schedule property till the date of appearance of the parties. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9