- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31970 CRP No. 443 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. 443 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: M.PRABHAKAR SON OF B MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.1197/5, NETHRAVATHI NIVAS, 1ST CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, N.T.R NAGAR, MOOKNDAPALLI POST, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT-635 109 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S.RAJAGOPALACHARI SON OF LATE SUBBACHARI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. RATHNAMMA WIFE OF LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 3. SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O LT NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 4. ANURADHA D/O LT NARASIMHA MURTHY 5. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LT S VENUGOPALACHARI Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31970 CRP No. 443 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 6. NAGASHREE D/O LTATE S.VENUGOPALACHARI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 7. SUBHASH S/O LT S.VENUGOPALACHARI AGED MAJOR 8. S.MURALIDHAR SON OF LATE SUBBACHARI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 9. S.UMASHREE D/O LATE SUBBACHARI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 10. S SURESH BABU SON OF LATE SUBBACHARI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 11. S.MANJUNATHA SON OF LATE SUBBACHARI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT BALLUR VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 107 12. RAMESH SON OF LATE SHANKARACHARI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 13. KRISHNAMMA WIFE OF RAMESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 14. CHANDRA CHARI SON OF RAMESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31970 CRP No. 443 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 15. ASHA DAUGHTER OF RAMESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 16. LAKSHMANA CHARI SON OF LATE SHANKARACHARI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 17. NAGARATHNAMMA WIFE OF LAKSHMANA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 18. PADMAVATHI DAUGHTER OF LAKSHMANACHARI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 19. CHETHAN L SON OF LAKSHMANACHARI AGED MAJOR 20. AMARAVATHI DAUGHTER OF LATE SHANKARACHARI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BALLUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLL, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 107 21. SEETHAMMA WIFE OF LATE VENKATACHARI VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.297/1, TEMPLE ROAD, BALLUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 107 22. NAGALAKSHMI DAUGHTER OF VENKATACHARI @ VENKATESHAAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31970 CRP No. 443 of 2026 RESIDING AT 1/106, GOPASANDHIRAM, KOTTAMADUGU, THALLY, DENKANIKOTA TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU- 635 118 23. PREMA V. DAUGHTER OF VENKATACHARI @ VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS NO.297/A, TEMPLE ROAD, BALLUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 107 24. S.SRINIVAS SON OF LATE SAMPANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT BALLUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 107 …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.1325/2025 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, REJECTING THE IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a), (b) AND (d) R/W SEC.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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31970 CRP No. 443 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.1325/2025 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, the petitioner/defendant No.13 is before this Court. 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 11 had filed O.S.No.1325/2025 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, seeking relief of partition, a declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.13, as the general power of attorney holder of defendant Nos.1 to 9, along with defendant Nos.10 to 12, in favour of defendant No.13 on 21.11.2024, and registered as a document in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Anekal, Bangalore District, is not binding on the plaintiffs, and a declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.13 in favour of defendant No.14 on 11.03.2025, and registered as a document in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Anekal, Bangalore District, is not binding on the plaintiffs. 3. Defendant No.13 has filed I.A.No.2 under Order 7 Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31970 CRP No. 443 of 2026 disclose the cause of action, the suit is barred by limitation, and the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient. In the affidavit, it is stated that the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date of the cause of action. With respect to the suit for declaration, the suit should have been filed within 12 years from the date of alienation. According to defendant No.13, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is stated that the suit schedule property was the absolute property of Venkatachari, as he purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 05.01.1949. After his death, his wife, Smt.Kamalamma, executed Will deed on 17.11.2012. The legal heirs of Kamalamma have executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.13. There is another suit in O.S.No.173/2018 pending before the trial Court, and according to him, the said suit is filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with the other defendants, and there is no cause of action. 4. The trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected I.A.No.2. While rejecting the application, the trial Court observed that defendant No. 13 contended that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property, hence the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31970 CRP No. 443 of 2026 Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient. It was observed that there are no averments in the affidavit annexed to the application with respect to the said contention. It was further observed that defendant No. 13 has not placed any material to show that the suit schedule property has been converted for non- agricultural purposes. Moreover, in a suit for partition, when there is a plea of joint possession by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs need not pay Court fee on the actual market value of the property. There are no averments in the plaint regarding ouster of the plaintiff from the joint family. In those circumstances, the plaintiffs cannot be compelled to pay Court fee on the actual market value of the property. Further, the second contention that the suit is barred by limitation, according to defendant No. 13, is that the Will deed was executed in the year 2012 and the present suit is filed in the year 2025, hence the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court observed that defendant No.13 executed the sale deed in the year 2025 in favour of defendant No.14. The sale deed of defendant No.13 was obtained on 21.11.2024, and the sale deed of defendant No.14 was executed on 11.03.2025. There is no material to show that the Will deed is acted upon. When the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31970 CRP No. 443 of 2026 execution of the Will deed itself cannot give rise to a cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the present suit, in those circumstances, the trial Court cannot come to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs are not parties to those documents and in the plaint, they have specifically pleaded that they came to know about the said documents very recently. These issues cannot be decided in an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, and an opportunity should be given to the parties, and accordingly, dismissed the application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC to dispose of a frivolous suit which is barred by law. The trial Court, without considering the material at hand, passed the impugned order. It is submitted that the reason for rejecting the application is that the Will executed by Kamalamma is a matter for trial. Pertinently, there is no mention of the Will in the plaint. It is settled law that, while considering the application filed for rejection of the plaint, the Court must consider the plaint averments and the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31970 CRP No. 443 of 2026 documents filed along with the plaint. It is the contention that the challenge to the registered Will is barred by limitation, and this aspect was not considered by the trial Court. It is submitted that the plaintiff, by clever drafting, attempted to circumvent the provisions of the Limitation Act. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the application and the settled law in this regard. 6. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in case of Krishna Murty Vs. M/s. Prabhavathi Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another arising out of MFA.No.8059/2022 dated 23.08.2024, wherein this Court had observed that the sale deed of the year 2012, executed in favour of defendant No.15, is in the deemed notice of the plaintiff. Considering all the aspects, the trial Court had observed that the balance of convenience is more in favour of defendant Nos.15 to 16, who have been in possession of the property since the year 2012 and have purchased the property in the year 2012, and that if an injunction is granted in the year 2018, it would cause hardship to the defendants. Relying on this judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31970 CRP No. 443 of 2026 any of these documents are public documents, it has to be inferred that it is in the deemed notice of the party. As per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, a person is deemed to have notice of the same. In that view of the matter, the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint. 7. 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 looked into. The defendant's defence or the documents filed by the defendant cannot be considered. 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 Court would consider the same and pass orders. The petitioner has raised an issue with regard to limitation. According to the petitioner, the Will is executed in the year 2012 and the suit is filed in the year 2025, which is beyond 12 years. The trial Court had rightly held that the plaintiff has not taken any plea with regard to the Will and that the relief sought is the cancellation - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31970 CRP No. 443 of 2026 of the sale deeds of the years 2024 and 2025, which are well within the limitation. With regard to the Court fee also, basing on the material on record, the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient, and there is no other material to take a contra view. The cause of action, limitation, and all the grounds that are raised by the petitioner were rightly considered by the trial Court, and it rightly held that those cannot be considered by the Court in an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. 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.: 68