- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31980 CRP No. 337 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. 337 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: R. SATHYANARAYANA RAJU S/O LATE RAMASUBBARAJU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.52, 2ND FLOOR, SECOND MAIN, VYALI KAVAL, BENGALURU-560003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUBBAMMA ADOPTED DAUGHTER OF DADDAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT INAMINCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101. 2. SMT. GOWRAMMA, ADOPTED DAUGHTER OF DADDAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT INAMINCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101. 3. MEKA PATTI ABHINAV REDDY S/O M. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.302, ASHOKAPARVA 68, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31980 CRP No. 337 of 2026 EAT STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560064. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2026, PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.168/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUGDE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE IA NO.2 FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(a) AND (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 Aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2026 passed in I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.168/2025 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura, the petitioner/defendant No.2 is before this Court. 2. The respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S.No.168/2025 seeking partition, claiming ½ share in the suit schedule property. The defendant No.2 purchased land bearing Sy.No.33, totally measuring 5 acres 25 guntas, situated at Balagere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk, from defendant No.1. The defendant No.3 purchased an extent of 3 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31980 CRP No. 337 of 2026 acres 18 guntas in Sy.No.33, out of 5 acres 25 guntas, from defendant No.2. In that, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same from defendant No.2 under the registered sale deed dated 06.11.2007. It is the case that the plaintiff has not challenged the Will Deed executed by Doddamma, nor has the plaintiff challenged the sale deeds dated 10.01.2005 and 06.11.2007. Hence, there is no cause of action to file the suit. It is stated that the plaintiff has created a false cause of action and filed a false suit before the trial Court, and the plaintiff has no locus standi nor any right to file the suit for declaration before the trial Court. Hence, the plaint has to be rejected. 3. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed I.A.No.2 after considering the respective contentions of the parties. While dismissing the application, the trial Court observed that, according to defendant No.3, defendant No.1 had sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.2, and defendant No.2 had sold the property in favour of defendant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31980 CRP No. 337 of 2026 No.3 on 06.11.2007. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation and is not maintainable. The trial Court observed that, in the plaint averments, the plaintiff has stated that originally suit property belonged to Doddamma. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are adopted daughters, have succeeded to the suit property, and are in possession of the suit property after the death of Doddamma. It is the case that defendant No.1 created a Will in respect of the suit schedule property and executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 behind the back of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of the suit property and obtained the revenue documents. The plaintiff challenged the revenue documents before the Assistant Commissioner, and the same was set aside, removing the names of defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the RTC. The suit property is standing in the name of Doddamma. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has produced the documents. It is observed that, at this stage, the plaint cannot be rejected on this ground. According to the defendant, there is no joint family and the suit property is not a joint family property. The contentions raised by the defendants, and the defence set down by them, cannot be the ground for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31980 CRP No. 337 of 2026 rejecting the plaint. All these issues can be decided at the time of the trial, and accordingly, the application was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not a speaking order. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the pleadings of the plaint and erroneously proceeded to dismiss the application. In the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff is the adopted daughter, but nothing is stated about when the adoption ceremony took place or the details of the adoption. In the absence of the relevant pleadings, the plaintiff could not have filed a suit for partition. In the absence of any specific details, the plaintiff ought to have sought a declaration that the plaintiff is the adopted daughter of Late Doddamma. Without seeking such relief, the suit for partition filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, and the plaint has to be rejected. The trial Court, without looking into the same, erroneously proceeded to record a finding that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are adopted daughters of Late Doddamma. These aspects cannot be decided while considering the application for rejection of the plaint. It is submitted that, in view of the specific allegations made in para No.6 with regard to forgery - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31980 CRP No. 337 of 2026 and concoction, the plaintiff ought to have furnished details as required under Order VI Rule 14 of CPC. In view of the non- furnishing of details, the suit is not maintainable. It is submitted that the WILL is a concocted and forged document. Once a party pleads concoction and forgery, it is for that party to seek a declaration of such document, and no such declaration is sought. The plaintiff has to seek a declaration in respect of the sale deeds dated 10.01.2005 and 06.11.2007, and in the prayer, the plaintiff has not sought any declaration in respect of the sale deeds, and the suit is not maintainable. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. All the pleadings raised by the petitioner are on the merits of the matter. On the face of it, the plaintiff has pleaded the cause of action, and according to the defendants, fraud has been played and the defendants are the absolute owners of the property. The Assistant Commissioner has set aside the revenue documents and removed the names of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the RTC, and the suit property is standing in the name of Doddamma. Further, whatever reliefs are sought in the plaint, it is for the plaintiff to prove her case, and the burden lies on her. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31980 CRP No. 337 of 2026 Ultimately, it has to be proved in the trial. Based on these contents, the contentions raised by defendant No. 3 cannot be the ground for the court to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. This Court has perused the reasoning given by the trial Court. The trial Court had rightly considered and 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.: 53