- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46787 CRP No. 362 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 362 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. K B GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE BETTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. H.G.DEEPAK S/O K.B.GOVINDARAJI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT. T.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, TARIKERE POST, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DIST-572130 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHESH A.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT MANGALAGOWRAMMA D/O JAYAMMA W/O VISHNU PURUSHA AGED 41 YEARS, R/AT HITTALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, K.R.S.AGRAHARA KUNIGAL TUMKUR - 572 130 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46787 CRP No. 362 of 2023 2. SMT. SUMADEVI D/O JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.749, 12TH CROSS, 3RD STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010 3. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O SRI NANJUNDAIAH ALSO KNOWN AS THAMMAIAH, AGED 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT HITTALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DIST-572130 4. SRI. M.K.ASHOKA S/O KADAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.149, 2ND MAIN ROAD, HEALTH LAYOUT, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560091 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NUTHAN GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRISH KUMAR C.S., ADVOCATE FOR CR1 AND R2) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.V IN OS.NO.115/2022, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46787 CRP No. 362 of 2023 JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) (b) AND (d) READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Mahesh A.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Nuthan Gowda for and Sri. Girish Kumar C.S., learned counsel for respondents. 2. Defendants No.2 and 3 in O.S. No.115/2022 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC Kunigal is the revision petitioner challenging the rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Item No. 5 in the said suit. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under : - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46787 CRP No. 362 of 2023 3.1 A suit came to be filed by the contesting Plaintiffs No.1 and 2/contesting respondents. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 contending that sale deed dated 10.01.1994 executed by the first defendant Smt. Sumathi Devi in favour of second defendant by registered document bearing No.1825/1993-94 is not binding on the plaintiff. 3.2 Plaintiffs contended that suit properties are the joint family properties and they also have a right in the suit property and alienation made by Smt. Sumathi Devi would not bind them. 3.3 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance opposed the suit prayer contending that suit property is that of the individual property of Smt. Sumathi Devi and she had every right to alienate in favour of second defendant. 3.4 Averments of Written Statement also reveal that proper parties are not impleaded in the suit and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46787 CRP No. 362 of 2023 therefore suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties. 3.5 Revision petitioners also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the aforesaid grounds and sought for rejection of the plaint. 3.6 Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, rejected the application by impugned Order dated 02.06.2023. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants no.2 and 3 are before this Court in this revision petition. 5. Sri. A.S. Mahesha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the ground urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the Trial Court has not properly considered the case of the parties and by mechanical order rejected the application resulting in miscarriage of justice. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46787 CRP No. 362 of 2023 6. Per contra, counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, the prime contentions heard on behalf of the second defendant is suit property bearing Sy.No.92/P1, measuring 4 acres situated at Hithalahalli Village, Kasba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, was granted by the Government of Karnataka in favour of the first defendant but not as a member of the joint family of plaintiffs and first defendant. 9. Such an issue cannot be decided at the threshold without holding a full-fledged trial. 10. Likewise, the second defendant contended that plaint does not disclose the proper cause of action and therefore suit is to be rejected. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46787 CRP No. 362 of 2023 11. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have contented that they are in possession of the suit property and it is only in the third week of April 2022, the defendants tried to interfere and therefore filed the suit. Likewise, the question of court fee is concerned, since the plaintiffs maintained that they are in possession of the property, valuing the suit under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Values Act is just and proper. 12. The issues raised by the second defendant are all mixed questions of law and facts and whether at all the first defendant had independent right to alienate the property in favour of the second defendant is a matter that has to be proved by the second defendant by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. 13. In other words, disputed questions cannot be the basis for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by holding a mini trial. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46787 CRP No. 362 of 2023 14. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the application seeking rejection of plaint which requires no interference. 15. Further, if the suit is bad for non-joinder or mis- joinder of the necessary parties, it will be an issue in the suit which will also have to be thrashed out at the end of the trial. Hence, rejection of the application. 16. In view of the foregoing reasons, following order: ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) Trial Court shall expedite the suit as early as possible. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC ct:SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0