- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30015 CRP No. 186 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 186 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI K. SHIVASHANKAR S/O SRI. B. KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. T6 AND 7, NISARGA DHAMA, JAYALAKSHMI ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURA, MYSURU-570001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ROOPA N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI PUTTAIAH @ CHIKKA PUTTAIAH S/O LATE SRI. HALINA DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, 2. SMT. P. HEMAVATHI, D/O SRI. PUTTAIAH @ CHIKKA PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 ARE R/AT S. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKANAHALLI POST, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGLAURU-562130, ALSO AT: CHANNAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30015 CRP No. 186 of 2026 KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA-562159, 3. SRI CHANDRASHEKARA P S/O SRI PUTTAIAH @ CHIKKA PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4. SMT. PUTTERAMMA W/O SRI CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 5. SMT. CHANDRAMMA D/O SRI CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 6. SRI CHANNAIAH S/O LATE SRI CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O SRI CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 8. SMT. KEMPAMMAA D/O SRI CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 9. SMT. MANGALAMMA D/O SRI CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 10. SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O SRI CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 10 ARE R/AT S. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKANAHALLI POST TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-562130. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30015 CRP No. 186 of 2026 THIS CRP IS FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2025, PASSED ON IA NO. IV IN OS NO. 539/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, REJECTING THE IA NO. IV FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(a) (b) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 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 Aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.539/2021 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi, the petitioner/defendant No.9 is before this Court. 2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the plaintiffs, have filed O.S.No.539/2021 seeking a declaration. The petitioner herein, who is defendant No.9, has filed I.A.No.4 under Order 7 Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC. In the affidavit, it is stated that the suit is for a declaration and that the sale deed dated 15.03.2007, executed by the deceased Sri. Chikkanna and defendant Nos.2 to 9 in favour of defendant No.9, is not binding on the plaintiff, and that a permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30015 CRP No. 186 of 2026 property is sought. It is the case that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 8 have colluded together, intentionally and deliberately, suppressed the true facts of panchayathi parikattu, and alienated the property, and have instituted this frivolous suit against defendant No.9 for the relief of declaration and other relief with respect to the suit schedule property. It is the case that the plaintiffs have no right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property, and further, that the plaintiffs, knowing fully well about the development made by defendant No.9 to make the layout after obtaining permission from the concerned authority, have intentionally instituted this suit with a dishonest intention to grab money from defendant No.9. It is the case that the plaintiff No.1 has not questioned the partition deed dated 02.12.2001 held between him and his elder brother, has not questioned the validity of the revenue entries vide MR No.4/2005-06, and has not questioned the validity of the sale deed executed by him in favour of defendant No.3, and that after the lapse of 20 years of panchayath parikkat, this suit is filed. It is also stated that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property and that they have to pay - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30015 CRP No. 186 of 2026 the Court fees on the market value of the property, and that the Court fee paid is not sufficient. 3. The trial Court, by the impugned order, had rejected the I.A. No. 4. While rejecting the application, the trial Court observed that the foremost contention urged by defendant No. 9 is that there is no cause of action to file the suit. On careful perusal of the plaint averments, it appears that the cause of action is pleaded by the plaintiff, and the probability of the said cause of action is sufficient to reject the I.A. Another contention is that the plaintiff has not paid the sufficient Court fee. It is observed that on perusal of the valuation slip, it appears that the plaintiff has calculated the Court fee for the relief of declaration on the basis of the assessment, and the same is sufficient. The other contention is that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court observed that it is a mixed question of fact and law and that cannot be considered at this stage. Accordingly, the trial Court had rejected the application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court, except for stating the versions of the petitioner and the respondents, has not provided any - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30015 CRP No. 186 of 2026 independent reasoning while considering the question of limitation, cause of action and court fee. The impugned order is not a speaking order. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to notice the Panchayathi Parikattu dated 02.12.2001 and the registered Sale Deeds dated 30.06.2005 and 15.03.2007 with respect to the schedule property executed by the plaintiff No.1 and his brothers. After the lapse of 20 years of the Panchayathi Parikattu and 14 years of the sale deeds, a false suit for declaration has been filed. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the documents placed before it. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. It is settled law that, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averments in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required to be seen. The defendant's defence or the documents filed by the defendant cannot be looked into. If the defendant makes out a point from the plaint pleadings and the documents that the suit has to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the trial Court would consider the same and pass orders. In the light of the settled law, the trial Court had rightly considered the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30015 CRP No. 186 of 2026 submission with regard to cause of action, Court fee and limitation. On a reading of the averments of the plaint, none of the grounds raised by the petitioner warrants rejection of the plaint. As far as Court fee is concerned, a finding is recorded that the Court fee paid is sufficient. With regard to limitation, the trial Court had rightly held that the question of fact and law cannot be decided, and a bare reading of the plaint discloses the cause of action, and all these disputed questions cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, and the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application, and this Court finds no grounds to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42