- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2485 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. ASHA M. JAIN W/O. SRI MAHENDRA KUMAR S. JAIN, D/O. SRI. JUHARMALJI S. JAIN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.97, 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, WIDIA LAYOUT SOCIETY, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040. …APPELLANT (BY SRI PARASMAL .B @ PARAS JAIN, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. KAVITHA .M W/O. SRI SHANKAR NAIK G.K., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.812, 12TH MAIN ROAD, HOYSALA ROAD, SRI VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NEAR SWATHI RESTAURANT, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 072. AND ALSO AT PROPERTY BEARING NO.148, (NEW NO.310), SITUATED AT 15TH CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 056. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDRASHEKAR H.B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.2306/2022 ON THE FILE OF 17TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING IA NO.2 FILED U/O VII RULE 11(a)(d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present regular first appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the order on I.A. No.2 dated 30.10.2023 in O.S. No. 2306/2022 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (‘trial Court’ for short). By the order, the trial Court allowed I.A. No.2 filed by the respondent- defendant under Order VII Rules 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC and rejected the plaint. 2. The suit was laid for mandatory injunction with consequential reliefs: viz, Permanent injunction, possession, declaration, interest, mesne profits and costs. 3. The plaintiff had filed I.A. No.5 under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of a commissioner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 ‘to inspect the suit schedule property and to find out its location, exact boundaries, property numbers of the adjacent property located on north, south, east and west side, width and name of the road and location of other site numbers.’ The trial Court allowed the application. 4. On challenge by the respondent in WP No.1168/2023, this Court set aside the order passed on I.A.No.5, holding that in a suit for permanent injunction/possession, where the plaintiff is not definite about the suit property, a commissioner cannot be appointed to ‘find’ the property for the plaintiff. 5. The defendant's application under Order VII Rules 11(a) and (c) was thereafter allowed by the trial Court, holding that the plaint did not disclose a valid cause of action, and noticing discrepancies between the plaintiff's sale deed dated 17.06.2004 and the vendor’s sale deed dated 17.09.1998 regarding boundaries/identity of the property, the plaint was rejected. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 6. Heard Sri Parasmal B @ Paras Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, Senior Advocate, for Sri Chandrashekar H.B, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the cause of action is a bundle of facts, the plaint must be read as a whole. At Order VII Rule 11 stage, only plaint averments can be considered, the trial Court has erred in relying on the vendor’s sale deed dated 17.09.1998, which, according to the appellant, was not part of the plaint. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Urvashiben and Another Vs. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi1 (Urvashiben), Ramesh B. Desai and Others Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Others2 (Ramesh B. Desai) and Ponnala Lakshmaiah Vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and Others3 (Ponnala Lakshmaiah). 1 (2019) 13 SCC 372 2 (2006) 5 SCC 638 3 (2012) 7 SCC 788 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 8. It is submitted that the settled proposition of law is that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments contained in the plaint are required to be looked into, and nothing beyond the plaint can be examined at that stage. By placing reliance on the decisions stated supra, it is argued that the merits and demerits of the rival claims cannot be adjudicated at the stage of rejection of plaint, and that a trial is necessary if the plaint discloses even a semblance of cause of action. It is thus contended that the trial Court committed a grave error in referring to and relying upon the vendor’s sale deed dated 17.09.1998, which does not form part of the plaint averments and consequently arrived at an erroneous finding that the plaint does not disclose a valid cause of action. 9. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant supports the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and submits that rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is fully - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 justified. It is contended that the sale deed of the vendor dated 17.09.1998 and the subsequent sale deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 17.06.2004 disclosed different and inconsistent boundaries, and therefore the identification of the suit property itself is in serious dispute. 10. It is submitted that the trial Court, at paragraph No.13 of the impugned order, has rightly relied upon the vendor’s sale deed dated 17.09.1998, which was on record, since the plaintiff herself pleaded that she derived title from her vendor, who had acquired ownership under the said deed. Once the plaintiff raises her title through the vendor, the vendor's sale deed forms part of a chain of title and could legitimately be examined by the trial Court. It is further urged that in view of Order VII Rule 3 CPC, when immovable property is subject matter of a suit, the property has to be described in the plaint with sufficient particulars enabling clear identification. In the present case, there is a lack of proper description and serious doubt regarding the boundaries and location of the suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 property. It is pointed out that the plaintiff herself was uncertain about the identity of her property inasmuch as she filed I.A. No.V under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to identify the location, boundaries and property numbers of the adjacent properties. Though the trial Court initially allowed the said application, the respondent successfully challenged it in WP No.1168/2023, wherein this Court held that in a suit for permanent injunction and possession, if the plaintiff herself is not sure and definite about the suit property, a Commissioner cannot be appointed to identify the property on her behalf. 11. Learned Senior Counsel relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and another4 (T. Arivandandam), to contend that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense that it does not disclose a clear 4 AIR 1977 SC 2421 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 right to sue, the Court should not hesitate to exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint at the threshold. Reliance is further placed upon Ramisetty Venkatanna and another Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and Others5 (Ramisetty Venkatanna) to contend that where identity of the property is not established, no relief of injunction can be granted. Similarly, in the case of Zarif Ahmad (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Mohd. Farooq6 (Zarif Ahmad), the Apex Court has held that in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff is obliged to give precise description of the property not merely by boundaries but also by municipal number and other details enabling identification. Learned senior counsel also cites the cases of Narayanamma Vs. Govindappa7 (Narayanamma) as well as Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I and another8 (Liverpool & London) to contend that while considering an application under 5 (2023) 5 SCR 589 6 2015 AIR SCW 1190 7 AIR 2019 SC 4654 8 (2004) 9 SCC 512 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is not confined to the body of the plaint alone but also can look into the documents annexed to the plaint, which in the present case includes the vendor’s sale deed of the year 1998. On the strength of these authorities, it is submitted that the plaint lacks proper identification of the suit property, is founded upon inconsistent boundaries, and is therefore manifestly vexatious. The trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are: i. Whether at the Order VII Rule 11 stage the trial Court was justified in looking at the vendor’s sale deed dated 17.09.1998? ii. Whether on a meaningful reading of the plaint, the plaint discloses a cause of action? iii. Whether the order passed by the trial Court warrants any interference? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 13. All the points for consideration are taken up together in order to avoid repetition of facts. 14. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to cull down the provision of Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC which enumerates as under: i. Under Order VII Rule 11, the settled law is that, at the stage of considering Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court examines the plaint averments, if clever drafting creates only an illusion of a cause, it must be nipped in the bud. The Apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam has observed that if on meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and merit less, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, trial court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X CPC. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 ii. Equally well settled is that the plaint is read with the documents it relies upon. The Apex Court has expressly noted that the Court may scrutinize the plaint ‘read in conjunction with the documents relied upon to test the Order VII Rule 11.’ The Apex Court in the case of Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through L.Rs and Others9 following the words in Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi has observed that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the Court iii. Similarly the Apex Court in Liverpool & London has held that the test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed 9 AIR 2020 SC 3310 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 should be taken into consideration. The test laid down in Liverpool & London at para 139 is as under : - “Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in its entirety, a decree would be passed.” iv. The plaintiff asserts ownership under the sale deed dated 17.06.2004 and traces title to the vendor who allegedly acquired title under the deed dated 17.09.1998. Where a plaintiff’s claim is founded on a chain of title, the documents forming that chain, if relied upon or within the Court’s ken at the stage of considering under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, can be considered. The Court’s approach of reading the plaint with its relied upon documents is not a roving enquiry into the defence. The trial Court's reference to the vendor’s deed for the limited purpose of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 identity/description on which the plaint is premised was therefore not impermissible. v. Order VII Rule 3 CPC mandates that the suit property must be described with sufficient particulars to enable identification. The Apex Court in the case of Zarif Ahmad has underscored that identifiability may be by boundaries, municipal/survey numbers, or even a plaint map, however the description must be clear and definite. The Apex Court observed that the object of Order VII Rule 3 CPC is that the description of the property must be sufficient to identify it. 15. In the present case, the boundaries and the description in the plaintiff’s deed of 2004 and the vendor’s deed of 1998 were inconsistent, the very identity of the suit property is in doubt. The plaintiff’s own conduct in moving I.A. No.V under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of a Commissioner to ‘find’ the location/ boundaries/site numbers betrays the want of definiteness. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 16. This Court in WP No.1168/2023 has already held that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to discover a plaintiff's property in a suit for injunction/possession, local investigation is not a means to cure defective pleading or to collect primary evidence. 17. On a meaningful reading, the plaint narrative fails to crystallize a clear right to sue because the subject matter is indeterminate. The cause pleaded is illusory. This is precisely the mischief out of which Order VII Rule 11A is aimed. 18. The appellant’s reliance on the ‘plaint alone’ rule does not advance the case when the plaint itself relies upon the chain of title, the trial Court did not weigh the defence or extraneous evidence, its assessment remained to the averments in the plaint and its own relied upon title chain. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Liverpool & London stated supra emphasize the threshold scrutiny to - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 stave off unmeritorious litigation. The reliance placed by the appellant in the cases of Urvashiben, Ramesh B. Desai and Ponnala Lakshmaiah recognize that the plaint averment matters and if plaint discloses some cause of action, rejection is improper. Also the Ponnala Lakshmaiah judgment recognizes that ‘illusory or cleverly drafted, plaints can be rejected’. Distinguishing the decisions of Urvashiben and Ramesh B. Desai to the present facts, the settled position is that the plaint averments is only to be looked into. Here the vendor’s deed was an integral part of the plaintiff's pleaded title, hence could be examined, the plaint as a whole discloses only an illusory cause of action. This Court finds that the reliance placed upon those judgments is distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts, and these precedents so far assisting the plaintiff-appellant reinforced the proposition of law that when the plaint, even on holistic reading, fails to disclose a clear and enforceable right to sue, the Court is justified in invoking - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32521 RFA No. 2485 of 2023 Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The trial Court's reliance on the plaintiff's own chain of title was proper and the plaint was rightly rejected. The points for consideration are answered accordingly and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The regular first appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The order passed on I.A.No.2 dated 30.10.2023 in O.S. No. 2306/2022 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City is hereby confirmed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16