- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 890 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.GANGAMMA, WIFE OF LATE SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAMALAVADI VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE -572 134 2. SRI. VIJAYANARASIMHA, SON OF LATE SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAMALAVADI VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE – 572 134 3. SRI. YOGANARASIMHA, SON OF LATE SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAMALAVADI VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE – 572 134 4. SMT. SHARADHAMMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAMALAVADI VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025 PINCODE – 572 134 5. SMT. NAGAMANI, DAUGHTER OF LATE SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAMALAVADI VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE -572 134 6. SMT. NALINI, DAUGHTER OF LATE SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAMALAVADI VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE -572 134 7. SRI. NARAYANA, SON OF LATE CHIKKANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAMALAVADI VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE -572 134 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. LAKSHMAIAH, SON OF LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT VADERAPURA VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE -572 120 2. SMT.CHANDRAMMA, WIFE OF GANGADHARAIAH, DAUGHTER OF LATE CHIKKANNA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT VADERAPURA VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE -572 120 3. SMT. NARASAMMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE BASAVAIAH ALIAS BASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.43, 4TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU, PINCODE – 560 079 4. SMT.JAYAMMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE BASAVAIAH ALIAS BASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.43, 4TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU, PINCODE -560 079 5. SMT.NAGAMMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE BASAVAIAH ALIAS BASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.43, 4TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU, PINCODE -560 079 6. SMT.ROOPA, DAUGHTER OF LATE NARASIHMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.43, 4TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU, PINCODE -560 079 7. SMT. DEEPA, DAUGHTER OF LATE NARASIHMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.43, 4TH CROSS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025 MARUTHINAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU, PINCODE -560 079 8. SRI. MANIKANTA, SON OF LATE NARASIHMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.43, 4TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU, PINCODE -560 079 9. SMT.GUNDAMMA, WIFE OF LATE NARASIHMAIAH ALIAS NARSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANABA VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE – 572 111 10. SRI. UGRAIAH @ UGRAPPA, SON OF LATE NARAIMHAIH @ NARASIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAMALAVADI VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE -572 134 11. SMT.SHANTHA, WIFE OF NARAYANA.K.H, DAUGHTER OF LATE NARASIHMAIAH ALIAS NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKABIDRAKALLU, NAGSANDRA POST, BENGALURU, PINCODE -560 073 12. SMT.SHOBHA, WIFE OF RAJESH.K.H, DAUGHTER OF LATE NARASIMHAIAH ALIAS NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025 RESIDING AT NO.8/1, 11TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU- 560 003 …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. XXIII IN OS NO. 38/219 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, DISMISSING THE IA NO. XXIII FILED U/O VII RULE 11(a) TO (d) 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 ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.23 in O.S.No.38/2019 dated 26.09.2025, whereby the trial Court has rejected I.A.No.23 filed for rejection of plaint. 2. The respondents herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession i.e., O.S.No.38/2019 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal. In that the petitioner/defendant has filed I.A.No.23 under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of CPC to reject the plaint. It is the case that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025 plaintiffs who have no physical possession of the suit schedule property are not supposed to file the suit for the relief one sought and for the lack of improper framing of the suit, suit is bad and liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the suit is under valued and because sufficient court fee is not paid, the plaint is likely to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is stated that the plaintiffs who have approached the court seeking partition of their portion are not supposed to assess the market value of the suit schedule property and pay the Court Fee under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. But the plaintiffs are supposed to assess the suit and pay the Court Fee under Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. For the latches is not paying proper and correct Court Fee, the suit of the plaintiffs is bad and deserves to be dismissed and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c). There is an oral partition that was acted upon and on the basis of the said partition the khatha has been carried out in the name of the respective parties, mutation were also effected on the basis of the family division. Hence the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. It is also stated that some of the properties are self acquired properties and they - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025 cannot be part of the suit schedule and also has narrated several transactions and how the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of partition. It is also stated that there was a partition in the family, much prior to the commencement of the amended Act of Hindu Succession Act. Even on the said ground also, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected as barred by limitation. 3. The trial court by order impugned had dismissed the said IA. While rejecting the IA, the Court has observed that in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India a wholesome reading of the plaint averments bereft of the contentions taken up in the written statement of defendant Nos.1 to 6 would indicate that the plaintiffs and the defendants constitute a Hindu undivided family and suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiffs that there is no partition or legal division in the family of the plaintiffs and the defendants who are jointly enjoying the suit schedule properties and since the plaintiffs are not interested to continue in the joint family, the plaintiffs approached the defendants on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025 03.02.2019 and demanded their share in the suit scheduled property by metes and bound and since the defendants refused for the same, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the present suit. The Court observed that a wholesome reading of plaint averment would clearly bring forth the facts that the cause of action for the present suit arose when the demand of the plaintiffs for their legitimate share over the suit schedule properties which they claim to be ancestral properties of themselves and defendants over which they have a legitimate share was turned down by the defendants on 03.02.2019. A reading of the plaint averments would bring out the necessary cause of action for the plaintiffs to institute present suit and as such the contention of defendant No.2 that the plaint does not disclose the necessary cause of action to file the present suit is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 4. The Court observed that the plaintiffs at para No.6 of the plaint have averred that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with the defendants and basing on that, it is suffice to infer that the plaintiffs are enjoying possession of the suit property so as to bring the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025 valuation of the suit within the ambit of Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and as such the contention of the defendants that Court Fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient and also that the suit of the plaintiffs is not properly valid does not stand to reason. With regard to the aspect of limitation, the Court observed that the question of limitation involves mixed question of law and facts and the same cannot be adjudicated merely on the basis of the plaint averment and it cannot be considered, accordingly rejected the I.A. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and is unsustainable both in law and on facts. It is stated that the trial Court has not considered the application of the defendants on merits of the case rather dismissed the application on technicality. The trial Court has failed to exercise the discretion conferred on it. It is submitted that the Court has completely ignored the relevant provisions of law as well as precedents laid down by the Courts. It is submitted that the grounds of limitation, Court Fees and the earlier partition that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025 had taken place, could have been decided by the Court looking at the plaint averment. The Court has failed to exercise the discretion and the order passed is without considering facts and law and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The respondent/defendant has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d). According to them, the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. The deed that is claimed is undervalued and a proper Court Fee paid is not correct and the suit is barred by limitation. For the purpose of the cause of action, the plaint does not have a cause of action and all these allegations have to be looked at from the plaint averments. A bare perusal of the plaint would indicate that the plaintiff has pleaded a cause of action to institute the present suit when the demand of the plaintiffs for their legitimate share over the property was not considered by the defendants. Hence at this stage the Court can only look at this and there is no reason to say that there is no cause of action. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025 7. Then the next ground is that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. As such he has to pay the Court Fees under Section 35 of the Karnataka Court Fees Act. Even on this count, according to the plaintiffs, they are in joint possession of the property. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property or not can only be decided at a later stage and at this stage the court cannot decide the issue to whether he is in joint possession of the property or not. 8. The third contention is with regard to whether the suit is barred by limitation. It is a settled law that the question of limitation is a question of fact and law which cannot be decided on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and can be decided by the Court, only after a full-fledged trial. On all these counts, the order that is passed by the court dismissing the application that is filed seeking for rejection of the plaint do not require any interference at the hands of this court. 9. This court is passing the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025 ORDER 1. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 2. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70