- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31973 CRP No. 251 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. 251 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B.M. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA @ GULLAPPA, R/AT BALAGERE VILLAGE, PANATHUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 087 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA @ GULLAPPA, 2. M. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA @ GULLAPPA, 3. SMT. ANANDAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA @ GULLAPPA, W/O. SRINIVAS GOWDA ALL RESIDENTS OF SONNAPURA VILLAGE, MELEKOTE POST, TUBAGERE HOBLI, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31973 CRP No. 251 of 2026 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561 205 B.M. DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA @ GULLAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS 4. SRI. RAJSHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE DEVARAJU B.M 5. SMT. KAVYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O. LATE DEVARAJU B.M 6. SRI. VENU B.D AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. LATE DEVARAJU B.M SMT. PADMAVATHI @ PADMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 7. R. JAGADISH MAJOR IN AGE, S/O. LATE PADMAVATHAMMA @ PADMAVATHI 8. R. RAMESH MAJOR IN AGE, S/O. LATE PADMAVATHAMMA @ PADMAVATHI 9. SMT. PRAMILAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O. B.M. DEVARAJU RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 9 ARE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31973 CRP No. 251 of 2026 RESIDING AT BALEGERE VILLAGE, PONATHUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE TALUK - 560 087 10. M/S. TRISHULBUILD TECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD., (FORMARLY KNOWN AS M/S. TRISHUL DEVELOPERS) A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.9, “ASHA” ALI ASKAR CROSS ROAD, OFF: CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. K. PRAKASH SHETTY 11. SMT. ROOPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O. D. RAJASHEKAR, R/AT NO.70, GUNJURU ROAD, BELAGERE VILLAGE, PANTHURU POST, VARTHURU HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 087 12. SMT. NAGAVENI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O. B.M. MANJUNATH, 13. B.M. BHARATHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O. B.M. MANJUNATH, 14. HARINI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, D/O. B.M. MANJUNATH, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31973 CRP No. 251 of 2026 15. SMT. RUKMINIYAMMA MAJOR IN AGE, W/O. NARASIMHAIAH 16. GOWRAMMA MAJOR IN AGE, D/O. NARASIMHAIAH RESPONDENT NO.12 TO 16 ARE R/O. GUNJURU ROAD, BELAGERE VILLAGE, PANTHURU POST, VARTHURU HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 087 17. SMT. ASHA P. SHETTY MAJOR IN AGE, W/O. K. PRAKASH SHETTY R/AT NO.9, ASHA, ALI ASKAR ROAD CROSS ROAD, OFF CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052 18. M/S. PRESTIGE HABITAT VENTURE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1, FALCUN HOUSE MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. IRFAN RAZAK 19. SMT. SHOBHA MAJOR IN AGE, W/O. DYAVAPPA, R/AT NO.170, RING ROAD, NEAR JAYARAMEGOWDA BUILDING, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, KADUGODI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31973 CRP No. 251 of 2026 POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 067 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 (CP NO.2898/26)) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2026 PASSED ON IA IN OS NO.1180/2011 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (R) DISTRICT, BENGALURU., REJECTING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS CRP, 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 28.01.2026 passed in I.A. filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of CPC in O.S.No.1180/2011 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, the petitioner/defendant No.2 is before this Court. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had filed O.S.No.1180/2011 seeking partition and declaration that the release deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31973 CRP No. 251 of 2026 null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, and that the sale deed dated 11.08.2010 is not binding on the plaintiffs. In the said suit, the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as defendant No.2, has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the CPC. It is the case of defendant No.2 that plaintiff No.1 is the second wife of one Muniyappa alias Gulappa, and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are their children. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the children of the late Muniyappa alias Gulappa through his first wife, Nanjamma, who has expired. Defendant No.4 is the wife of defendant No.1. Muniyappa alias Gulappa died intestate, leaving the plaintiffs and defendants as their legal heirs. It is the case that the scheduled properties are joint family properties, and they were in joint possession. In July 2011, the plaintiffs requested the defendants to effect a partition, which the defendants denied, and therefore the plaintiffs claimed their one sixth share in the scheduled property. The defendants have filed their written statement, denying the plaint averments and stating that the properties are the self-acquired properties of late Muniyappa alias Gulappa. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31973 CRP No. 251 of 2026 3. It is stated that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had filed a partition suit against Muniyappa, where their shares were bifurcated. In the year 1999, the plaintiffs approached defendant Nos.1 and 2 and demanded their share in terms of money. Since defendant Nos.1 and 2 had already undergone partition in O.S.No.26/1998, defendant Nos.1 and 2 on humanitarian consideration have paid money to the plaintiffs. After receipt of the money, the plaintiffs executed a registered Release deed on 01.09.1999 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendants have transacted their respective portions of the properties and have come to their shares as per their wish. After relinquishment of the plaintiffs' share in the schedule properties, any challenge to the Relinquishment Deed has to be made within 3 years from the date of execution of the Relinquishment Deed. Hence, on this ground alone, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. There is no cause of action, the suit is undervalued, the plaintiffs have not paid the required court fee and the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law, further the Relinquishment Deed dated 01.09.1999 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31973 CRP No. 251 of 2026 4. The trial Court, by order impugned, rejected the I.A. While rejecting the application, the trial Court observed that a perusal of the plaint averments reveals that the plaintiffs have categorically stated that the plaintiffs and defendants are joint family members and that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties. By virtue of the amendment to the plaint, the plaintiffs have inserted the fact of the Release deed dated 01.09.1999. At para No.5(a) of the plaint, the plaintiffs have submitted that they have never executed any Deed of Release in respect of the schedule properties at any point of time. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not admitted the fact of execution of the Release deed dated 01.09.1999. Under these circumstances, whether the plaintiffs have executed a Release deed in favour of the defendants and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the schedule properties, by virtue of the properties being ancestral and joint family, is a matter for trial. The plain reading of the plaint discloses that the plaintiffs have asserted the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants, the demand for partition, and denial of partition by the defendants. Hence, the plaintiffs have made out the ingredients required in a suit for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31973 CRP No. 251 of 2026 partition. It is observed that the plaintiffs have accordingly paid the court fees. It is observed that, in those circumstances, there are no grounds, and accordingly, the application was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the registered Release Deed dated 01.09.1999 is a public document, executed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the petitioner and his brother, which is within their knowledge and has been deliberately suppressed by them. Hence, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled to any relief, as they have approached the Court with unclean hands. It is submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have released or relinquished their share, if any, in respect of the schedule properties in favour of the petitioner and his brother by executing the registered Release Deed dated 01.09.1999. As such, they have lost their coparcenary right in respect of the schedule properties, and no subsisting interest remains in the schedule properties and the suit for partition does not survive. The registered Release Deed dated 01.09.1999 carries a presumption of validity, and the suit for partition is not maintainable as cancellation of the Release - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31973 CRP No. 251 of 2026 Deed dated 01.09.1999 has to be sought as per the Specific Relief Act by paying the court fee. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Rattan Singh and Others Vs. Nirmal Gill and Others arising out of Civil Appeal Nos.3681-3682/2020 dated 16.11.2020. He had relied on judgment in case of Prem Singh and Others Vs. Birbal and Others1. Paragraph Nos.28 and 29 read thus: “28. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent No.1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption. 29. If a deed was executed by the plaintiff when he was a minor and it was void, he had two options to file a suit to get the property purportedly conveyed thereunder. He could either file the suit within 12 years of the deed or within 3 years of attaining majority. Here, the plaintiff did not either sue within 12 years of the deed or within 3 years of attaining majority. Therefore, the suit was rightly held to be barred by limitation by the trial court.” 7. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Uma Devi and Others Vs. Anand 1 AIR 2006 SC 3608 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31973 CRP No. 251 of 2026 Kumar and Others2. Paragraph Nos.14 and 18 which read thus: “14. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the partition that took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them being registered documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma, these sale deeds have not been challenged, neither has partition been sought. Thus, the suit (filed in the year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years. 18. In our considered opinion, the Trial Court had rightly allowed the application of the defendants/appellants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a meaningless litigation, that it did not disclose a proper cause of action and was barred by limitation. There were thus no justifiable reasons for the appellate court to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court.” 8. Relying on these judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the facts and law and dismissed the application and the same is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 submits that the trial court rightly considered the matter and passed the order, and no interference is called for. 2 (2025) 5 SCC 198 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31973 CRP No. 251 of 2026 10. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, 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 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 case from the pleadings and the documents filed along with the plaint 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. Coming to the facts of the case, the plaintiff, having relinquished his right by suppressing all the facts, has filed the present suit. The plaintiffs, by way of an amendment, have inserted the fact of the Release deed dated 01.09.1999, over which the plaintiffs have submitted that they have never executed any deed of release in respect of the said properties at any point of time, and they are not admitting the execution of the Release deed. In these circumstances, the Court has to decide whether the Release deed is executed by them or not. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31973 CRP No. 251 of 2026 11. In this case, any of the contentions raised by defendant No.2 in their pleadings in support of the I.A. or the written statement, cannot be considered by this Court in the light of settled law. The trial Court had rightly dismissed the application. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court does not find any reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ii. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Any observations made in this case shall not be construed as an expression of this Court. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48