- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44876 CRP No. 245 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 245 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI.B.R.GURUDEV S/O LATE B G GURUPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS BALLUPETE VILLAGE BELAGODU HOBLI SAKALIESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573134 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. OMKAR BASAVA PRABHU.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI VINAYAKA INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION (R) BALLUPETE VILLAGE AND POST BELAGODU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT SRI VINAYAKA INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION(R) BANAVASE BALLUPETE VILLAGE AND POST BELAGODU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573134 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44876 CRP No. 245 of 2022 2. SECRETARY SRI VINAYAKA INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION(R) BALLUPETE BELAGUDU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573134 3. SMT SEEMAMANI W/O B G ARJUN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS BALLUPETE VILLAGE BELAGUDU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573134 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NIRANJAN KUMAR B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.06.2022, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2022 PASSED ON I.A.4 IN OS.NO.47/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, SAKALESHPUR, REJECTING THE I.A.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44876 CRP No. 245 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Omkar Basava Prabhu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 2. First defendant in O.S. No.47/2021 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed vide I.A.No.4 under Order VII Rule 11(a) (b)& (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 Respondents No.1 and 2 in the revision petition being the plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S. No.47/2021 contending that the suit property was belonging to one B.G. Gurappa who is the father of the revision petitioner who had gifted the said property in favour of the first plaintiff and thereafter a school building has been constructed therein. School has earned good name and has become famous in the locality catering to the needs of the poor children. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44876 CRP No. 245 of 2022 3.2 First defendant is also member of the school committee and there are some serious differences with regard to the management. 3.3 The dispute arose when the first defendant started claiming that the land is that of their family and therefore, the first respondent has no right in respect of the school property and interference was there. As such, plaintiffs filed the suit contending that the school is in place from the year 1973 and therefore the title to the suit has been perfected by the first respondent adverse to the interest of the real owners and does sought for declaration that the suit property belongs to the first respondent/ Institution and consequential reliefs. 3.4 Defendant entered appearance filed written statement denying the plaint averments and maintained that the first respondent could not become the owner of the property by way of a oral gift. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44876 CRP No. 245 of 2022 3.5 It is also contented that they are running the school and first respondent has no right over the suit property. 3.6 An application also came to be filed by the first defendant vide I.A. No.4 under Order VII Rule 11(a) (b)& (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3.7 It is contented that there is no cause of action to the suit and suit is not maintainable and Court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient. 3.8 Plaintiff opposed the said application by filing written objections. 3.9 Learned Trial Judge after taking note of the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the said application filed by the defendant No.1, inter alia holding in Paragraph No.16 as under: 16. After hearing both the parties and going through all the decisions filed by both the parties, it is clear that, plaint can be rejected only if is barred by law on the face of it and if does not show any cause of action - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44876 CRP No. 245 of 2022 to file the suit. Whether the gift deed is valid or not, whether any right is acquired by the plaintiff through alleged gift deed, whether they acquired the right through adverse possession has to be decided only in full pledged trial. It is a premature stage now to decide the gift is not valid and there is no gift at all. It is also not a stage to decide whether the court fee paid is sufficient or not. The same can be decided through a preliminary issues on court fee and limitation. This court has already allowed the amendment application made by the plaintiff and allowed the plaintiff to amend the suit including the prayer of adverse possession. The amendment always takes back to the date of presentation of suit and now once the amendment application is allowed the court has to accept it as the prayer of adverse possession was taken on the date of filing the suit. When there is alternative prayer by the plaintiff and there are sufficient grounds pleaded in the plaint in support of this pleadings I do not find any reason why the plaint has to be rejected. When the plaint says clear cause of action regarding his declaratory prayer and it is valued as per agricultural land. The valuation will be treated as preliminary issue and also a matter of limitation would be treated as preliminary issues while framing the issues and opportunity would be given to both the parties to led evidence in this regard. But at this stage it is to premature to decide the suit is not maintainable, based on gift deed. An opportunity has to be given to the plaintiff school society as thousands of students studying there and it is the question of future of poor students who - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44876 CRP No. 245 of 2022 are studying in the school. If the plaint is rejected now on these grounds, the plaintiff would suffer as they would loose opportunity to put forth their valid claim over the suit property. Hence the grounds U/O 7 rule 11 (a) (b) and (d) are not made out by defendant and I have answered point No.1 in Negative. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, first defendant is before this Court in this revision petition. 5. Sri Omkar Basava Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that plaintiffs cannot maintain the suit based on a oral gift said to have been made by the father of the first defendant and suit is not maintainable based on such oral gift and as such there is no cause of action to file the suit. 6. He would also contend that the Court fee paid on the plaint is highly insufficient and therefore he has invoked Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought for dismissal which has not been properly - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44876 CRP No. 245 of 2022 considered by the Trial Court and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. He would also contend that after the written statement came to be filed, plaintiffs got amended their plaint. It is also subject matter of the W.P. No.11266/2022 before this Court. Therefore, he would contend that suit itself is not maintainable and sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Counsel for respondent is absent. 9. In the light of the argument put-forth on behalf of the petitioner this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record paragraph No.3 of the plaint is perused by the Court wherein plaintiff has pleaded about the ingredients of adverse possession. 11. It is now settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that plea of adverse possession can also be - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44876 CRP No. 245 of 2022 used as sword to pray for a declaratory relief unlike it was being used as only shield earlier. 12. Further, whether the oral gift made by the father of the first defendant and based on the same, the school building was constructed and school is being run by the plaintiff or first defendant cannot be decided at the threshold while enquiring into the matter under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. These disputed questions need recording of evidence and full fldged trial. 14. So also the question of court fee is concerned, it is a matter that is to be adjudicated during the trial unless there is a specific violation of any one of the provisions of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuations Act. 15. Whether the building is constructed by the first defendant or by the plaintiffs by utilizing the funds of the plaintiff or not cannot be decided while deciding the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44876 CRP No. 245 of 2022 application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 16. Therefore, none of the grounds on which the plaintiffs sought to be rejected are available for the first defendant to seek for rejection of the plaint which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order, which requires no interference in this revision. 17. Hence, following order: ORDER Civil Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57 CT-SG