- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49496 CRP No. 246 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 246 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.K.V. MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS S/O LATE K. VENAKATA RAO R/AT NO. 15/1, KANAKAPURA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. 2. SRI. K.V. ASHOK AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE K VENKATA RAO R/AT NO. 15/5, KANAKAPURA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. 3. SRI. K.V. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE K VENKATA RAO R/AT NO. 15/4, KANAKAPURA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIKRAM, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DWARAKA NATH H.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAMATHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O LATE M SRINIVAS 2. CHETHAN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O M. SRINIVAS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49496 CRP No. 246 of 2024 3. NITHIN AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS S/O LATE M. SRINIVAS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE AT NO.6 ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET ARAKERE, BENGALURU - 560 076 4. SMT. LEELA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O SRI. RAMESH D/O LATE C. MUNIYAPPA 5. MINOR DHRUVA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS S/O LATE M. RAVI (MINOR RESPONDENT NO.5 IS REP. BY HIS GUARDIAN PATERNAL AUNT 4TH RESPONDENT) RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 ARE AT NO. E 327, SANKRANTHI LAYOUT KOTHANUR VILLAGE, SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 78. 6. SMT. M UMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O T. GURUMURTHY D/O LATE C. MUNIYAPPA R/AT NO. 205/1, 6TH CROSS KAVIKA LAYOUT, DEEPANJALI NAGAR MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6; R5 IS MINOR REP. BY PATERNAL AUNT GUARDIAN-R4) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.VI IN OS NO.1094/2016 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, REJECTING THE IA NO.VI FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(A) AND (D) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49496 CRP No. 246 of 2024 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.Vikram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Dwaraka Nath H. S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.1094/2016 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) by way of impugned order dated 15.11.2023. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.1094/2016 with the following prayer in respect of the following immovable property: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49496 CRP No. 246 of 2024 PRAYER “Wherefore, the plaintiffs most humbly pray to pass for a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by: a. Declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession having right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property. b. Declaring that the registered partition dated 08.04.2014 bearing No.BSG-01-00135/2014-15 stored in CD No.BSGD238 which is held between the defendants is not binding on the plaintiffs in so far as the suit schedule property is concerned. c. Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, power of attorney holders or anybody claiming through them from in any manner interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and granting such other and further relief/s as are just and necessary in the interest of justice. SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the agricultural wet land bearing Sy.No.21 measuring Ac.3-00 guntas - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49496 CRP No. 246 of 2024 together with 05 guntas of kharab land out of the total extent of Ac. 6-12 guntas situated in Mahanthalingapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District and bounded on East by: Lands in Sy.No.16 and Sy.No.19, West by: Jigani Industrial Area to Harohalli main road North by: Land in Sy.No.20 belongs to K.V.Ananda Rao South by: The remaining land in same Sy.No.21” 3.2. Plaintiffs claim that they were quasi permanent tenants in respect of the suit property by virtue of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner after the Inam Abolition Act came into force. 3.3. Defendants had no right over the suit property and therefore, sought for the aforesaid plaint relief. 4. Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement by contending that the order of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49496 CRP No. 246 of 2024 registering the plaintiffs as quasi permanent tenants was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner and an inferior right of only tenant came to be registered in respect of the suit property and suppressing the said aspect of the matter, suit came to be filed and at no stretch of imagination, plaintiffs would succeed in the suit and such a suit needs to be dismissed by exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 5. Defendants also took up a contention that in the order of cancellation of the quasi permanent tenancy, occupancy rights have been granted in favour of the defendants and therefore, suit has to fail. 6. Plaintiff opposed the said application and learned Trial Judge by way of impugned order, dismissed the application on contest. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court, in this revision. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49496 CRP No. 246 of 2024 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that in view of the suppression of the material fact, there is no cause of action to the suit as the quasi permanent tenantship of the plaintiffs have been lost and in the very same order, occupancy rights have been granted in favour of the defendants. 9. Therefore, plaint relief for declaration of the title is impermissible as there is no title document for the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. As such, he would contend that continuation of the suit is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore, this is a fit case where the powers vested in the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC ought to have been exercised and suit plaint ought to have been rejected. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order by contending that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49496 CRP No. 246 of 2024 defence taken by the defendants in their written statement and the plaint averments makes out a triable issue. 11. If there is a triable issue, parties are required to place necessary material evidence on record. 12. Ultimately, if the plaintiffs fail, defendants can seek for the cost including the exemplary cost as is contemplated under Section 35A of CPC and therefore, rejection of the application is just and proper. 13. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, no doubt plaintiffs have not brought to the notice of the Court in the plaint that there was a subsequent order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner modifying the status of the plaintiffs from quasi permanent tenants to ordinary tenants. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49496 CRP No. 246 of 2024 15. According to the defendants, in the very same order, occupancy rights have been granted in favour of the defendants. 16. Whether at all the tenancy rights and the occupancy rights would act contradictory to each other or not, how can a modification would allow quasi permanent tenant to tenant, whether the plaintiffs can maintain a suit for declaration or not, are all the matters of controversy to be decided by full-fledged trial by adducing the evidence by the parties. 17. Such a complicated enquiry is impermissible by holding a mini trial at the time of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC at the threshold and plaint cannot be rejected. 18. Thus, if not in happy words, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application which requires no interference in this revisional jurisdiction. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49496 CRP No. 246 of 2024 19. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and parties are at liberty to canvass their respective contentions in the trial in accordance with law. iii. Taking note of the fact that suit is of the year 2016; suit shall be expedited as early as possible. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52