- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28390 CRP No. 481 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 481 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: SMT. PRAKASH BAI AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, W/O M. MITHALAL, NO.9, DODDAKATAPPA ROAD, 1ST CROSS, ULSOORE, BANGALORE - 560 008. REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER /SON SRI. SANJAY KUMAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAIMAHADEV SUBRAMANYAM K.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. V. CHARANA S/O B. UDAYA KUMAR @ B.VENUGOPAL, MAJOR, 2. KUMARI. V. NAVYATHA, D/O B. UDAYA KUMAR @ B. VENUGOPAL, MAJOR, MENTALLY RETARDED HENCE REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL GUARDIAN/ MOTHER SMT. M.S. RAJESHWARI Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28390 CRP No. 481 of 2026 3. SMT. M.S. RAJESHWARI, W/O B. UDAYA KUMAR @ B. VENUGOPAL, MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.48, MUNIYAPPA BUILDING, BEHIND MANJUNATH TEMPLE, GARDUDACHAR PALYA, MAHADEVPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 048 …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.04.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2026 IN O.S.NO.26080/2013 ON THE FILE OF LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU., REJECTING THE IA NO.1/2026 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28390 CRP No. 481 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.1/2026 in O.S.No.26080/2013 dated 06.04.2026 passed by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo hall, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court has rejected the IA No.1/2026 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, aggrieved thereby the petitioner/defendant No.3 is before this Court. 2. The respondents herein have filed a suit for declaration that the Sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiffs, for partition of the suit schedule property and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and also for a permanent injunction from demolishing the further remaining portion and also sought for an injunction from alienating the property. In the said suit, the petitioner herein has filed an IA under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. 3. It is stated that the suit is barred by law and the plaintiffs themselves have categorically pleaded that the suit schedule property was partitioned between defendant No.1 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28390 CRP No. 481 of 2026 his brother in the year 2003, under a registered Partition deed dated 06.06.2003 and in view of the same, the suit schedule property became the separate and self acquired property of defendant No.1. On that ground, the present suit for partition is not maintainable and does not survive for consideration. It is stated that the pursuant to the registered Partition deed dated 06.06.2003, the suit schedule property became the absolute and self acquired property of defendant No.1 and thereafter, defendant No.1 sold the property in favour of defendant No.2 and thereafter to defendant No.3. The present suit has been instituted only to harass defendant Nos.2 and 3, which is a clear abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the Apex Court, in case of Angadi Chandranna Vs. Shankar and others1 has held that in Hindu Law, once partition occurred between the parties, each party get their separate and distinct share and that share becomes their self-acquired property and they have absolute right over the property. It is submitted that in the light of the said averments in the plaint, the plaint has to be rejected. 1 2025 SCC Online SC 877 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28390 CRP No. 481 of 2026 4. The trial Court by order impugned has rejected the IA that is filed by the defendant No.3. While rejecting the IA, the trial Court has observed that, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the plaint averments and the documents filed by the plaintiffs can alone be taken into consideration. The prayer made in the plaint shall have to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led in by the parties. Defendant No.3 has simply stated in the application that the plaint has to be rejected, but in affidavit, it is stated that the suit is barred by law as the suit schedule property has become the separate and self-acquired property of defendant No.1 as per the plaint averments. The trial Court observed that admittedly, in the plaint, though the plaintiffs stated that suit schedule property was given to the share of husband of plaintiff No.3 i.e., defendant No.1 in the family partition, but not at all admitted that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of the deceased defendant No.1. Further the trial Court observed that, in view of the specific plea of fraud and misrepresentation alleged by the plaintiffs against defendant No.1 at the time of execution of the Sale deed, the same has to be decided only after appreciating the oral and documentary - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28390 CRP No. 481 of 2026 evidence of the parties. When the plaintiffs have claimed that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and they are having 1/3rd share over the same and prayed for the relief of Declaration in respect of the Sale deed dated 19.05.2011 and that has to be decided after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of the parties to the suit. Such issues cannot be adjudicated at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and accordingly dismissed the application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant No.3 submits that the trial Court has committed a grave error in law by dismissing an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The reason given by the trial Court is not a well considered one. The trial Judge has given an undue weightage to various allegations made in the plaint, akin to the matrimonial dispute between mother of plaintiffs and defendant No.1, the said allegations and averments in the plaint are wholly irrelevant for consideration of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. After the partition, the said property has become the self- acquired property and this aspect is not considered by the trial Court and he submits that the order - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28390 CRP No. 481 of 2026 itself needs to be set aside and the application has to be allowed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, perused the material on record. 7. According to the defendant No.3, the property is no more a joint family property as it is partitioned and the suit cannot be maintained. The trial Court has considered this aspect and also the aspect that the plaintiffs have alleged fraud and other aspects which can only be decided after a full-fledged trial. On these kind of grounds, if the plaints are rejected, every plaint has to be rejected without going into the merits of the matter. While considering an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the Court can only look at the averments in the plaint and the documents which are filed along with the plaint and apart from those two, the Court will not look at any other document or argument for the purpose of considering an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The trial Court considering all these aspects and the authorities pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court has rightly rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and this Court do not find any - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28390 CRP No. 481 of 2026 reasons to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All the contentions are left open to the parties. iii. All pending I.As., if any in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24