- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47707 CRP No. 174 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. 174 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: SMT.SHASHIKALA W/O LATE K SEETHARAMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NO.691, 8TH MAIN ROAD, P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.DURGESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SWAMY.M.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SANDHYA B.S., W/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NO.691, 8TH MAIN ROAD, P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. 2. KUM.ANANYA D/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O NO.691, 8TH MAIN ROAD, P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA B R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47707 CRP No. 174 of 2023 THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2023 PASSED ON I.A.No.IV IN O.S. No.322/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING I.A.No.IV FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 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.Durgesh Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Prasanna.B.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Defendant in O.S.No.322 of 2022 is the revision petitioner challenging the rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC by order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. (Sr.Dn.,), Davanagere. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47707 CRP No. 174 of 2023 3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: A suit came to be filed with the following prayer in respect of the following property: a. For partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 1/3rd share each in suit schedule properties by virtue of testamentary document i.e., Will dated 24.02.2022 executed by deceased Sri.Seetharam. b. Consequently restrain the defendant, her brother, agents or anybody claiming under her from dispossessing/ hosting these plaintiffs from the schedule property by means of permanent injunction decree. c. Consequently restrain the defendant, her brother, agents or anybody claiming under her from alienating or encumbering the schedule properties to anybody in any manner by means of permanent injunction decree. d. For the court cost and such other relief deems fit under the circumstance of the case. SCHEDULE 1. A house property comprising of shop premises, bearing its # No.691, measuring 55 X 40 feet, situated at 8th Main, P.J.Extension, Davanagere bounded as hereunder: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47707 CRP No. 174 of 2023 East : Road West : Conservancy Road North : property belongs to Halavagalu Basappa South : property belongs to Sri.Manjunath.S.Revankar 2. The Stock and Business in the firm running in the name and style of "Associated Business Corporation", situated at commercial premises standing in the name of Smt. Nagamani and the Stock and Business in the firm running in the name of Style of "Seetharam Associates", situated at the commercial premises standing in the name of Smt.Sandhya. 3. A business in the name of "Sri.Sastha Enterprise" at No. 14/B,JMG Lane, M. P. Road Cross, Bangalore-560002. 4. Suit was contested by the defendants by contending that the alleged Will dated 24.02.2022 is shrouded with suspicion and therefore, the plaint is to be rejected. 5. An application also came to be filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint on the similar grounds that was raised in the written statement. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47707 CRP No. 174 of 2023 6. The application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing detailed written objections offering the explanation parawise to the affidavit in support of the said application. 7. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing the parties, by impugned order rejected the said application, interalia holding in paragraphs Nos.18 and 19 as under: "18. The learned counsel for the defendant pointed towards several facts in the alleged Will and contended that the alleged Will divests the defendant who is the wife of the deceased and lion's share in properties go either to plaintiff No.2 or to the plaintiff No.1. Further it is argued that one of the beneficiaries under the Will is an attesting witness and also that the other witness is a resident of Holenarasipura and hence the alleged Will is shrouded with suspicion, but the said facts are irrelevant at a stage when the application under consideration is for rejection of plaint and which needs to be disposed of solely on the basis of the averments in the plaint. Perhaps the defense of the defendant as forthcoming from defendant's pleadings cannot be looked into by the court, while dealing with application seeking rejection of plaint. Moreover considering these facts would tantamount to touching the merits of the case and expressing an opinion on a document which forms the very crux of the matter. As such none of these attentions can be looked into by this court at this stage of the matter where the concern of this court is whether the plaint is liable to be rejected or not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47707 CRP No. 174 of 2023 19. To sum up where the plaint does disclose a cause of action and as regards the suit being barred by law for time being in force, the defendant has not been able to bring home the fact that from the very statement in the plaint the suit is barred by law. Perhaps where the application of the defendant primarily revolves around Section 213 of Indian Evidence Act and the law on the aspect of maintainability of suit based on an unprobated Will is quiet well settled. Viewed from any angle, this court finds no reason to allow the application and reject the plaint. Hence, point No.1 is held in the negative and thereby it is held that the plaint indeed discloses the cause of action necessary for the purpose of maintaining the suit and that suit does not appear to be barred by any law statement in the plaint". 8. Correctness of the said order is assailed in the present revision petition. 9. Sri.Durgesh Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that on the face of it, the Will is a bogus and suspicious Will. Therefore, no relief can be granted in the suit and as such, rejection of the application is improper and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47707 CRP No. 174 of 2023 10. Per contra, Sri.B.R.Prasanna, learned counsel for the respondents, supports the impugned order. 11. Having heard the arguments on both side, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, disputed Will has to be proved by the profounder of the Will by placing necessary evidence on record, in terms of the requirements of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Indian Succession Act, 1956. 12. At the threshold, such an exercise cannot be carried out by the learned Trial Judge by holding the mini trial. 13. Suffice to say that the material available on record needs full-fledged trial as there are triable issues, which are made out. 14. Hence, rejection of the application filed by the revision petitioner is just and proper, which requires no interference in this revisional jurisdiction. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47707 CRP No. 174 of 2023 15. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition stands dismissed. (ii) However, the parties are at liberty to canvass necessary valid points, in their favour, in accordance with law, in the pending trial. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24