- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47887 CRP No. 743 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 743 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT RAJESHWARI M W/O N JAYASIMHASRAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/aT NO 17, 10TH CROSS 5TH MAIN, KRISHNAPPA BLOCK GANDHI BAZAR BENGALURU - 560 032 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHILPA S. GOGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ANANTHA ALIS ANANTHAKUMAR S/O RAMRAJU AGED 23 YEARS 2. RAGHAVA R S/O RAMARAJU, AGED 20 YEARS 3. SRI C D RAMARAJU S/O LATE DODDARAMAIAH AGED 53 YEARS R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT KAMMASANDRA LASKHMIPURA Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47887 CRP No. 743 of 2023 DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 4. SRI C D PRAKASH S/O LATE DODDARAMAIAH AGED 55 YEARS R/A CHUNCHEGOWDANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NANJE GOWDA C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.142/2023 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA., REJECTING THE IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SECTION 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 1. Heard Sri. Ganesh Gowda for Smt. Shilpa S. Gogi, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47887 CRP No. 743 of 2023 2. Third defendant in O.S.No.142/2023 is the revision petitioner challenging the portion of the Order dated 26.10.2023 insofar as rejection of the application seeking rejection of the plaint. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.142/2023 with following prayer in respect of the following property: PRAYER Wherefore plaintiffs prays this Hon'ble Court to draw a judgment and decree as against the defendant by granting: (a) For partition of the ancestral and joint family property and put the plaintiffs in separate possession of her respective 1/3rd share out of 1st defendant's 1/2 share over the suit schedule property through meets and bounds. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47887 CRP No. 743 of 2023 (b) The sale deed dated 23.07.2008 executed by the defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs. (c) Grant costs of this suit and such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems to fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE All that part and parcel of the land bearing old Sy.No.50/6A and new Sy.No.50/13 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas excluding 0-02 guntas kharab situated at Chunchegowdana Hosahalli village, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, bounded on : East by : Land of Chikkaramaiah, West by : Land of Veerappa North by : Border of Koogonahalli Vilage South by : Land in Sy.No.50/6A and Village Road. 4. In the plaint, it is contended by the plaintiff that the plaintiffs are the children of the first defendant and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47887 CRP No. 743 of 2023 second defendant is the brother of the first defendant and they constitute Hindu Undivided Joint Family. 5. Present revision petitioner being the third defendant purchased the suit property. Therefore, the suit was laid and an application was also filed seeking grant of injunction in respect of the suit property. 6. In the meantime, first defendant filed written statement and also an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint as the claim is beyond fifteen years of the alienation. 7. Learned Trial Judge heard both the applications and by common order allowed the application seeking grant of injunction and dismissed the application seeking rejection of the plaint. 8. Validity of the said Order is called in question in this revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47887 CRP No. 743 of 2023 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that the learned Trial Judge fail to note that the challenge by the plaintiff is after fifteen years of the alienation and therefore per se the suit is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action. 10. In the light of the arguments put-forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of material on record, it is pertinent to note that the third defendant has not challenged the Order of injunction and has only challenged the rejection of the plaint. 12. Further, the plaintiff has the independent right in respect of the suit property or not cannot be decided by holding a mini trial while considering the application seeking rejection of the plaint. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47887 CRP No. 743 of 2023 13. Matter requires full fledged trial. Moreover, the question of limitation is mixed question of law and needs to be considered by the Trial Court and the trial. Therefore, rejection of the application is just and proper. 14. Hence, the following Order: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. (ii) All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT-SG