- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.559 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. Y.N. MANJUNATH S/O LATE Y.P. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT MASJID ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASEKHARA K.H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NAGESH S/O LATE Y.P. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT MASJID ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. 2. 2(a). SRI P. NARASIMHAIAH SINCE DEAD BY REPTD BY HIS LRS, SMT. REDDAMMA, W/O LATE P. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 2(b). SMT RADHAMMA D/O. LATE P. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2(c). BABY D/O LATE P. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2(d). GEETHA D/O LATE P. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2(e). GUNNAMMA D/O LATE P. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.2(a) TO 2(e) ARE R/AT "GEETHA NILAYA", 12TH CROSS, 14TH WARD, GANDHJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 064. 3. SRI RAMESH @ TATA RAMESH S/O LATE ABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.17/18, KAMAKASHMMA LAYOUT, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064. 4. SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O. LATE JANGAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT NO.218/207, BESTARA BEEDI, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R.4; NOTICE TO R.1 TO R.3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25.09.2023). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, IN O.S.NO.4176/2020 DATED 27.07.2023 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW I.A.NO.3/2022 AND I.A.NO.1/2023 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) TO (d) OF CPC AND UNDER SECTION 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC. 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.K.H.Somasekhara, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Babu, learned counsel for the contesting respondent. 2. Defendant no.1 in O.S.No.4176/2020 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application of under Order VII and Rule 11(a) to (d) of CPC in the present civil revision petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 A suit in O.S.No.4176/2020 for following relief in the respect of following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') came to be filed by the plaintiff: "WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Pass Judgment and Decree against the Defendants for an order of (a) To declare that, the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property. (b) to pass Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants and anybody claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property by the Plaintiff, (c) To grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case including an order of costs of the Suit, in the interest of justice. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the land property bearing Sy.No.10/1, New Sy.No.10/6, measuring 1 Acre situated Yelahanka New Yelahanka Taluk, Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, & Bengaluru and bounded by: East by : Kokkalu Dasappa and Ramaswamappa Property, West by : Railway Road, North by : Hanumakka's Property of Sy.No.10/1 South by : Bangyappa Land." 3.2 Plaintiff contended that she is the absolute owner of the suit property bearing Sy.No.10/1 of Yelahanka Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. It is contended that land in Sy.No.10/1 measuring out of 1 acre was acquired by the plaintiff to a registered gift deed 24.08.1961. According to plaintiff the suit property belonged to the late Rangappa @ Ranga and after death of said Ranga, his three children namely Bangyappa, Konda @ Chikka Kondappa and Channa @ Channappa orally partitioned the suit property. Sy.No.10/1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 thus became Sy.Nos.10/1 and 10/2 totally measuring 4 acres 20 guntas was partitioned and land measuring 1 acre 38 guntas had fallen to the share of Bangayappa. Land measuring 1 ace 08 guntas which had fallen to the share of Konda @ Chikka Kondappa and remaining extent of land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas had fallen to the share of Channa @ Channappa. It is the further contention of the plaintiff is that Konda @ Chikka Kondappa had no issues, he adopted the plaintiff as his legal heir and the property that had fallen to the share of Konda @ Chikka Kondappa has been succeeded by the plaintiff and thereafter she got mutated the revenue entries and thus she is in enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.10/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and also 1 acre 8 guntas. Plaintiff also contented that she has constructed a cowshed and enjoying the suit property without hindrance from anybody. 3.3 Further contention of the plaintiff is that the suit property was part and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.10/1 and 10/2 of Yelahanka Village of its as stated above, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 Bangayappa, Konda and Channa are the owners. It is further contended that in collusion with the revenue authorities, defendant nos.1 to 3 in the guise of partition in their family properties, applied for phoding of the land and without notice to the plaintiff, the land in Sy.No.10/1 measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.10/2 measuring 21 guntas, Sy.No.10/5 measuring 12 guntas, Sy.No.10/6 measuring 27 guntas and Sy.No.10/7 measuring 10 guntas, the revenue entries were noted in the name of the defendants and the same was subject matter of the proceedings before the ADLR. 3.4 Plaintiff further contended that defendant nos.1 to 3 colluded with the revenue authorities and got mutated the revenue entries, which was also subject matter of pending appeals before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.Nos.86/2020 and 88/2020. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 3.5 When the matter stood thus, defendants tried to interfere with suit property on 02.09.2020 and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. 3.6 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and a detailed written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 which was adopted by the other defendants. Defendant no.1 also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the land in Sy.No.10/6 has got nothing to do with the property of the plaintiff. But in the plaint, in respect of property bearing Sy.No.10/1, a bald statement is made stating that the said land is having new number as 10/6 and filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief which is per se incorrect and sought for rejection of the plaint. 3.7 Plaintiff opposed the said application by filing detailed objection statement. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 3.8 Learned trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by impugned order, dismissed the said application. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant no.1 has filed the present revision petition on the following grounds: • The order impugned passed by the trial court, rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner on IA.No.3/22 and IA.No.1/23 under Order VII Rule II(a) to (d) of CPC and U/s 11 R/w 151 of CPC for rejection of suit on 27-7-2023 is highly illegal besides being erroneous. • The trial court has failed to consider that 4th respondent had filed the above suit by suppressing the facts of the earlier suit filed against the petitioner and others in OS.No.2514/2009 for permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.10/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas. The said suit came to be decreed to the extent of 1 acre in her favour on 16-4-2013. The OS.No.6496/2009 filed by the petitioner and others for permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.10/6 measuring 27 guntas came to be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 decreed in RFA.No.1733/2016 on 27-11-2019. Hence, the suit between petitioner and 4th respondent are with respect of same property. Without considering this aspect of the matter the trial court has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner. • The trial court failed to consider that once this Hon'ble court decreed the suit of the petitioner in RFA No.1733/2016 and held that the petitioner and his family members are in lawful possession of Sy.No.10/6 measuring 27 guntas of situated Yelahanka village, Yelahanka hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru based on the sale deed executed by Smt.Nanjamma in favour of father of the petitioner on 16-4-1975. Hence, the question of declaring that the 4th respondent is the absolute owner of suit schedule property is illegal. Without considering these aspects of the matter the applications of the petitioner came to be rejected illegally. • The trail court failed to consider that once this Hon'ble court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner after considering the sale deed, partition deed and other contemporary documents declaring that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property. The question of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 adducing the evidence in the suit filed by the 4th respondent does not arise at all. Hence, the applications filed by the petitioner are required to be allowed and suit of the 4th respondent may be dismissed. • The court below has failed to consider that the 4th respondent has admitted in her plaint that Sy.No.10/1, new Sy.No.10/6 belongs to the petitioner and his family members. Once, the 4th respondent/plaintiff admitted ownership of the petitioner in her suit the question of adjudicating the matter to declare the suit schedule property in favour of 4th respondent/plaintiff is without any basis. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial court while considering the applications of the petitioner. Hence, the order impugned is required to be set aside by this Hon'ble court. • The court below has failed to consider that the 4th respondent/plaintiff has already sold her portion of land in Sy.No.10/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of Smt. Lalithamma and she formed a layout and sold the sites to third parties is an admitted fact. Hence, the question of deciding the case of the 4th respondent for declaration does not arise at all. If the trial court taken up the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 matter for trial the plaintiff may not succeed in the matter. Hence, to save the court precious time the suit of the plaintiff is required to dismiss by allowing the applications of the petitioner. • The court below has failed to consider that the 4th respondent/plaintiff has not paid proper court fee in the suit filed by the 4th respondent. On this ground alone the applications of the petitioners required to allow instead of rejecting. • Viewing from any angle the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside. 5. Sri. Somasekhara K.H., learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the learned trial Judge did not understand the scope of the application filed by the revision petitioner in seeking rejection of the plaint inasmuch as even according to the plaint averments, Sy.Nos.10/1 and 10/2 which was belonging to common purchaser by name Ranga who had three children namely Bangayappa, Konda and Channa and there was a partition. Admittedly, Konda did not have any issues and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 therefore the plaintiff was adopted by the said Konda. Thereby, plaintiff claims that she is the owner of the suit property. 6. Sri. Somasekhara K.H., learned counsel would further contend that assuming that the said statement is true for the sake of arguments, then also there cannot be any cause to file the suit in respect of the land in Sy.No.10/6 and only in the prayer column the plaintiff has alleged that the land in Sy.No.10/1 is now given a new number of 10/6 and therefore seeking a declaration is per se not maintainable and as such, dismissal of the application filed by the defendants which is impugned in the present revision petition has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Per contra, Sri. Babu, learned counsel for the contesting respondent/plaintiff would contend that land in Sy.No.10/1 when was phoded, had been assigned with the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 number 10/6 after gift deed came to be executed in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff having succeeded to the share of Konda, who adopted the plaintiff. 8. However the defendants with the mala fide intention, colluded with the revenue officials and got mutated the revenue entries in the re-phoding proceedings which is subject matter of the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. Admittedly, no notice was issued when the re-phoding proceeding has taken place and as such, the order passed by the revenue authorities in assigning Sy.No.10/6 to the alleged land possessed by the defendants is incorrect and therefore, when the suit is one for declaration, detailed enquiry is necessary as to who is the owner of the suit property. As such, dismissal of the application is justified and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material available on record, plaintiff is also claiming the rights based on the land held by common purchaser Ranga who had three children. Plaintiff claims the title through Konda and get another grant in respect of suit property whereas first defendant claimed that he is the owner of the property and purchased the same by the uncle of the plaintiff namely, Bangayappa. After the purchase, without notice to the plaintiff, there was mutation proceedings. So also the revenue officials said to have visited this spot for 'hadbast' proceedings, gave the number to the property purchased by the first defendant as Sy.No.10/6. 10. Whether the land that was retained by plaintiff is the land which has been given Sy.No.10/6 or not cannot be decided by trial Court at the time of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 11. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC what has to be considered is the plaint averments alone and not the defence taken by the defendant. 12. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in dismissing the application filed by defendant no.1. Further, since the trial has begun, expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter would definitely hamper the rights of the parties one way or the other. 13. Therefore, desisting from holding a mini trial when the learned trial Judge has rightly opined that the matter requires a detailed enquiry to thrash out the differences between the parties, this Court, that too, in the revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the order of the trial Court. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54460 CRP No. 559 of 2023 14. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The civil revision petition is dismissed. ii. This Court has made it clear that this Court has not expressed opinion on the merits of the matter including the title of the contesting parties in respect of the suit property. iii. Parties are at liberty to place such evidence as is available to them in accordance with law in the trial Court. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20