- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49695 CRP No. 211 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.211 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. V PRABHAVATHI W/O SRI M CHENGAPPA @ MITTUR CHENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.7/2, GANGAVARAM, S.V. STREET, SAI NAGAR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517 590. 2. SRI.H.S. PRASANNA KUMAR S/O LATE SRI. SAMPANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT HARATI VILLAGE, HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563 103. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SRINIVASAN T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O SRI SRINIVASAPPA, HARATI VILLAGE AND POST, HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK – 563 103. 2. SRI. GOVINDARAJU EX-MLC S/O LATE SRI. VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT ‘INCHAR NILAYA’, PETE CHAMANAHALLI, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. …RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2 -SERVED) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49695 CRP No. 211 of 2024 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2023 PASSED ON I.A. IN O.S.No. 161/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, KOLAR, REJECTING THE I.A.FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (a) AND (d) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 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 T.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.161/2021 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kolar, are the revision petitioners challenging the Order dated 08.12.2023 rejecting of application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 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 by respondent No.1 contending that she is the absolute owner of the properties mentioned below, hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’, by virtue of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49695 CRP No. 211 of 2024 the registered Will dated 19.09.1986 executed by Nandyala Muniyappa @ Muniyappa. “All the properties situated at Harati village, Huthur Hobli, Kolar Taluk: 1) Land bearing Sy.No.26/1, dry, measuring 1 acre 31 guntas, bounded on: East: Chalapathy, West: Gullarappa, North: Narayanappa’s share South: Nandanna. 2. Land bearing Sy.No.225, New Sy.No.225/1 present Sy.No.225/3, dry measuring 1 acre 11½ guntas now measuring 1 acre 10 guntas bounded on: East: Share of Narayanappa, West: Kere, North: Voni South: Kere. 4. Plaintiff has further contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2, without there being any right, title or interest over the suit properties, with the aid of third party, interfered with the suit properties by creating sale deed said to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of third defendant who is the local politician. Therefore, filed a suit for declaration that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties and Order of permanent injunction and declaring that the sale deeds dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49695 CRP No. 211 of 2024 25.08.2015 and 13.09.2010 are void and not binding on the plaintiff and, for costs. 5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement and also an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint as there is an endorsement in the certified copy of the Will that said Will is cancelled. Therefore, plaintiff is not the owner of the property and there is no cause of action to the suit inasmuch as it is the defendant No.2 and 3 who are owners of the properties having purchased the same from the first defendant. 6. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, dismissed the application, inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.6 to 8 as under: “6. Point No.1: The present suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, wherein the plaintiff contended that she acquired the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered Will dated 19.09.1986 and she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff denied by defendants in toto and contended that the alleged registered will - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49695 CRP No. 211 of 2024 being already canceled and plaintiff having knowledge in respect of the said cancellation deed but by suppressing the material facts filed the suit claiming title over the suit schedule property. 7. No doubt the cause of action is a bundle of facts wherein based on the pleadings issues have already been framed by casting burden on the plaintiff to prove her title over the suit schedule property as well as her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit and also alleged interference of defendant No.2 and the sale deed dated 13.09.2010 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 is illegal and not binding so also sale deed dated 26.08.2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal and not binding wherein now the contention raised by the parties with respect to the Will that too one Nandyala Muniyappa @ Muniyappa is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Moreover the plaintiff specifically stated that the cause of action arose in the month of August 2020 and all the dates that the defendants are interfering with her possession, furthermore the cause action cannot ascertain only on the basis of para wise but the pleadings in its entirely have to be taken into consideration accordingly when the present suit which is filed in respect of the title by virtue of will and whether the said will is in force or acted upon as contended by the plaintiff and the said will already been cancelled accordingly plaintiff not entitled for the relief which have to be determined only - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49695 CRP No. 211 of 2024 during full fledged trial that too burden is on the defendants to rebut the alleged Will but without doing so, no doubt the provision of Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) reads thus: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (d) "where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law". When the plaintiff approached this court for the relief of declaration of her title over the suit schedule property that too by virtue of registered Will dated 19.09.1986 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction such being the thing only on the ground that the alleged will already been canceled without determining the said fact at this stage it cannot be concluded that the Will already canceled, hence there is no cause of action and the suit is barred by other law for time being force, such being the thing the defendant No.1 and 2 have not made any sufficient grounds to allow the application. Hence, I answer this point in the Negative.” 7. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court in the Revision Petition. 8. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that when once the Will is cancelled, there is no legal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49695 CRP No. 211 of 2024 title to the suit property and as such, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit which has not been properly considered by the Trial Court and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 9. He would also contend that first defendant being the granddaughter of the Nandyala Muniyappa @ Muniyappa had every right to sell the property in favour of the second defendant. Therefore second defendant being the absolute owner, is enjoying the property as of his own and a suit for declaration without valid title in the plaintiff is not maintainable against the registered owner of the suit property and thus sought for admitting the revision petition. 10. Respondents are served with the notice of the revision petition and remained absent. 11. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revision petitioners, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, defendant No.1 claims that she is the adopted daughter and therefore - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49695 CRP No. 211 of 2024 granddaughter of Nandyala Muniyappa. Further, the executant said to have died in the month of September 1987 and alleged cancellation of the Will is said to have taken place on 01.06.1987. What is the document with which the Will got cancelled is not placed on record. 13. Anyway whether there was a proper bequeath made by Nandyal Muniyappa in favour of the plaintiff and what made said Nandyal Muniyappa to cancel the said Will allegedly on 01.06.1987 are all matters that requires to be established during the trial. 14. Admittedly from September 1987 till upto the filing of the suit, there were no other proceedings in respect of the suit properties and plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit property. 15. Cause of action paragraph in the suit clearly mentions that there was interference by the defendants in the month of August 2020 and therefore suit came to be filed. 16. Taking note of the fact that the second defendant is claiming the right through the first defendant who claims to be - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49695 CRP No. 211 of 2024 the adopted daughter of Sri Venkataramanappa, but claims to be the daughter of Nandyala Muniyappa the title that has been allegedly passed on to the second defendant by defendant No.1 is a question which requires to be enquired into during the Trial by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. 17. Thus, dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Trial Court in the impugned order needs no interference in this Revision Petition. 18. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56