- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53238 CRP No. 529 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 529 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. BHAGYAMMA D/O NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O LAMGANI THANDYA, PINNENAHALLI, CHELUR HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. PIN CODE NO - 572 216. 2. P.D.HARSHITHA, D/O P.M.DODDANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, MINOR PETITIONER NO.1 IS MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN R/O LAMGANI THANDYA, PINNENAHALLI, CHELUR HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. PIN CODE NO - 572 216. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B G VIJAYAKUMARA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53238 CRP No. 529 of 2024 AND: 1. SHIVAMMA W/O LATE DODDANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O LAMGANI THANDYA, PINNENAHALLI, CHELUR HOBALI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. PIN CODE NO - 572 216. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, REGISTRAR TO BIRTHS AND DEATHS GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTIRCT PIN CODE - 572 216. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, ON I.A. NO.VII FILED IN O.S NO.90/2023 DATED 29.06.2024 AND TO ALLOW THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION AND ETC., 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:53238 CRP No. 529 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri B.G. Vijayakumara Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 2. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent. 3. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.90/2023 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi. 4. The facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition, are as under: 4(i) The respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S. No.90/2023 with the following prayer, in respect of the following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as “suit properties”):- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53238 CRP No. 529 of 2024 "PRAYER FOR JUDGEMENT AND DECREE Wherefore, the plaintiffs prays for Judgement and Decree against the defendants for - a) Declaration that plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of late Doddananjappa. b) Declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit schedule properties. c) Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant No.2 to rectify the death certificate by incorporating the name of plaintiff as wife of deceased Doddananjappa in the death certificate registered on 18-11-2021; and d) For permanent injunction restraining the defendent No.1 from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties in any manner; e) Costs of the suit, in the interest of justice. SCHEDULE 1) S.NO.298 measuring 1-20 acres, Assessed Rs.8- 05, situated at Chelur, Chelur hobli, Gubbi taluk bounded by- East; Road West; land of Gowramma North; land of Sevanayank South; land of Ramanayaka 2) S.NO.300 measuring 1-20 Acres, Assessed at Rs.9=74 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53238 CRP No. 529 of 2024 Situated at Chelur, Chelur hobli, Gubbi taluk bounded by- East; land of Ramadasanayaka West ; land of Rajanayaka North ; land of Nanjundappa South; land of Siddamalliah." 4(ii) Plaintiff based suit by contending that husband of the plaintiff - Doddananjappa was the owner of the suit property and she is the legally wedded wife of Doddananjappa and after the demise of Doddananjappa, revenue entries were mutated in her name on an application. 4(iii) It is further contented that defendant No.1 being the relative of Doddananjappa, started claiming that she is the wife of late Doddananjappa and filed an application before the defendant No.2 claiming that she is the wife of Doddananjappa. Therefore, her name is to be entered in the revenue records and also obtained the death certificate of Doddananjappa. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53238 CRP No. 529 of 2024 4(iv) Plaint averments further contend that the first defendant is not the wife of Doddananjappa and the second defendant being unaware of the said fact, attempted to transfer the revenue entries, which was objected to by the plaintiff. 4(v) The said attempt of the defendant No.1 came to the knowledge of the plaintiff, when she went for obtaining the death certificate from the Tahsildar Office, wherein the officials of Tahsildar Office disclosed that defendant No.1 has already obtained the death certificate, claiming to be the wife of Doddananjappa and therefore, she filed the suit with the aforesaid prayer. 4(vi) In the cause of action paragraph, which is at paragraph No.7 in the plaint, there is a specific averment that she came to know about the said attempt on 08.11.2021 and 18.11.2021 and thus, filed the suit. 4(vii) Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 and 3 entered appearance and the defendant No.1 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53238 CRP No. 529 of 2024 filed the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint, by contending that Doddananjappa has executed a Will in favour of the third defendant. 4(viii) Learned trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1 by the impugned order. 4(ix) Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are before this Court in this revision petition on the following grounds:-  The impugned order passed by the trial court is highly illegal and hence it is not sustainable in law.  The trial court has failed to consider that the facts and material of the stated in the application accompanied affidavit and simply rejected the application is not justified.  The trial court has failed to appreciate that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of late Doddananjappa, who is the absolute owner and have got right over the same to alienate the . Accordingly late Doddananjappa had executed the registered will in favour of his daughter during his life time and rejected the application is not justified. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53238 CRP No. 529 of 2024  The trial court giving erred findings on the suit schedule properties that the execution of registered will is not part of plaint averments. That apart the claim of the plaintiff requires trial and adjudication. Mere existence of registered will in the name of defendant no.3 does not take away the right of the plaintiff to litigate her rights in the suit schedule properties before this court and rejected the application is liable to be set-aside.  The trial court has failed to appreciate that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation; the plaintiff filed the suit after 25 years of the marriage of the defendant No.1 with late Doddananjappa and passed an order on I.A No.7 is liable to be set-aside. 5. Sri B.G. Vijayakumara Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contented that learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law in not properly appreciating the scope of Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure. 5(i) It is his further contention that perusal of the plaint averments would make it clear that plaintiff has alleged that she is the legally wedded wife of Doddananjappa and not the first defendant. There is no material document placed on record to establish the said - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53238 CRP No. 529 of 2024 aspect of the matter and when there is a will executed by Doddananjappa in favour of defendant No.3, plaintiff claiming that she is the wife of Doddananjappa itself is in dispute. Therefore, there is no cause of action to the suit and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is to be noted that the settled principles of law would envisage that the plaint averments alone must be taken note of while considering the application under Section 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure. 7. There is a clear averment made in the plaint that the plaintiff is the wife of Doddananjappa and the first defendant being the relative of Doddananjappa, started claiming rights over the suit property as if she is the wife of Doddananjappa. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53238 CRP No. 529 of 2024 8. In a matter of this nature, recording of evidence is necessary to ascertain who is the legally wedded wife of Doddananjappa and it will be an issue in the suit. 9. Such a complicated disputed question of law cannot be decided while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure by holding a mini trial. Learned trial Judge has rightly noted the same in paragraph No.13 of the impugned judgment. 10. Therefore, dismissal of the application filed by the petitioners needs no interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly following: ORDER i) The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ii) However, the parties are at liberty to canvass all favourable contentions, in accordance with law, in the trial. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53238 CRP No. 529 of 2024 iii) No order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39