- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30001 RFA No. 358 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.358 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. JAYAKUMAR S/O. GOVINDARAJ, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.45/42, 6TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M. GOVINDARAJ S/O LATE M.MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.45/42 6TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010. 2. SRI. G.SUDHAKAR S/O M.GOVINDARAJA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.45/42, 6TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S VISWESHWARAIAH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30001 RFA No. 358 of 2024 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2024 PASSED ON I.A.No.2 IN OS.NO.6749/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the order dated 08.01.2024 passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.6749/2022 by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.2), thereby, the application I.A.No.2 filed by the defendant for rejection of plaint was allowed and the plaint was rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30001 RFA No. 358 of 2024 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. Defendant No.1 is the father of defendant No.2 and plaintiff and the mother of defendant No.2 and plaintiff, who is the wife of defendant No.1 had executed a registered Will dated 23.05.2016, thereby giving a life interest in favour of defendant No.1 and bequeathing the property in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is going to alienate the property and it is also apprehension of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is making arrangements and making all efforts to get defendant No.2 declared as the owner of the entire property, thereby causing deprivation of the plaintiff’s right and interest. Hence, with these pleadings and stating the cause of action, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30001 RFA No. 358 of 2024 5. The defendants appeared and filed written statement and also filed an application I.A.No.2 under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of the CPC, praying for rejection of the plaint on the reason that there is no cause of action to file a suit as it is based only on the mere apprehension of the plaintiff. Hence, prays to reject the plaint. 6. Based on the said application, the Trial Court entertained I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of CPC, thereby rejected the plaint. The Trial Court assigned reasons that the plaintiff, who is the beneficiary under the Will, is not entitled to restrict the power of defendant No.1 from alienating the suit schedule property, even though a life interest is given to him, as it will not take away the right of defendant No.1 as per Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, ‘TP Act, 1882’), and treated the transfer by defendant No.1 is valid. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff restricting defendant No.1 for alienating the suit schedule - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30001 RFA No. 358 of 2024 property, is not maintainable and hence, no cause of action arose to file the suit; therefore, the plaint was rejected. The Trial Court also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DAHIBEN VS. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) (D) THR LRS &ORS1 and this Court in the case of MRS. ARLENE PINTO VS. MR. SUNIL JOSEPH PINTO AND OTHERS2. 7. Being aggrieved by the order rejecting the plaint by entertaining I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of CPC, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular First Appeal by raising various grounds in the appeal memorandum and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff argued in consonance with the grounds raised that defendant No.1 is supporting defendant No.2 in getting khatha of the entire property transferred in favour of 1(2020) 7 SCC 366 2MFA No.5266/2013 C/w CRP No.181/2017 and other cases dated 06.01.2022 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30001 RFA No. 358 of 2024 defendant No.2 alone. Thus, in this way, the aspiration of the Will would be defeated. Further, by this action of defendants, the wishes of the mother is defeated; therefore, the cause of action arose for filing the suit. Hence, it is submitted that the plaintiff has a triable issue before the Trial Court. Thus, without considering this, the Trial Court has simply rejected the plaint. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/defendants submitted that defendant No.1 is given a life interest over the property and is not going to alienate the property; therefore, defendant No.1 is not intending to sell the property. Therefore, no cause of action arose to file a suit. Further, it is submitted that the mere expression of apprehension that defendant No.1 would alienate the property does not amount to raising a cause of action to file a suit. Therefore, it is submitted that the Trial Court is correct in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30001 RFA No. 358 of 2024 rejecting the plaint, as there is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the following points arise for my consideration: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that there is cause of action arose to file a suit for permanent injunction? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendants prove that there is no cause of action to file a suit? iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint requires interference by this Court? 10. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction. The facts pleaded in the plaint are that defendant No.1 is the father of plaintiff and defendant No.2. One Krishnaveni, who is the wife of defendant No.1 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30001 RFA No. 358 of 2024 and mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 had executed a registered Will dated 23.05.2016 bequeathing the property in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.2. In the said Will, Krishnaveni has reserved life interest over the property to defendant No.1. Krishnaveni died on 08.07.2016. As per the Will, Krishnaveni had made arrangements for her husband and made illusory division over the property and has given northern side of the property to the plaintiff and southern side to defendant No.2. 11. It is pleading of the plaintiff that defendant No.2 had approached the office of the Sub-Registrar and made an application for getting the change of name in the Khatha so far as the northern side of the property, which was bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff by stating that there is a typographical error in the Will. Thus, in this way, defendant No.2 is attempting to mutate his name in the Khatha for the portion of the northern side, for which defendant No.1 is supporting defendant No.2. Hence, with - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30001 RFA No. 358 of 2024 this pleading, the plaintiff has filed a suit by stating that these are bundle of facts made by the plaintiff and that they constitute cause of action to file a suit. 12. Even the defendants stated that they are not going to alienate the property, but the apprehension of the plaintiff is that his northern side of the property is under the zone of attempt to usurp by defendant No.2 by making some documents before the office of the Sub-Registrar to change the entries that defendant No.2 is bequeathing the northern side of the property also. It is pleading of the plaintiff that for this attempt, defendant No.1 is supporting defendant No.2. Under these circumstances, when the suit is filed with a genuine apprehension that defendant No.2, even after succeeding in his attempt, the plaintiff will be deprived of getting the property as per the Will. Hence, this raises cause of action to file a suit. 13. Just because defendant No.1 is not going to alienate the property alone is not a ground to say that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30001 RFA No. 358 of 2024 there is no cause of action, but when as per the pleading of the plaintiff, both defendant Nos.1 and 2 have colluded each other and are trying to deprive the share of the plaintiff as per the registered Will that also amounts to raising cause of action to file a suit. Hence, the Trial Court has committed error in observing that there is no cause of action to file a suit; therefore, the same is liable to be set aside by remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i) and (iii) in the Affirmative and point No.(ii) in the Negative. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 14. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular First Appeal is allowed. ii. The order dated 08.01.2024 passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.6749/2022 by the I Additional City - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30001 RFA No. 358 of 2024 Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.2), is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. iv. No order as to costs. It is made clear that any of the observations made above shall not influence or come in the way of deciding the suit on its merits and the Trial Court is directed to consider the suit on its merits and dispose of the case on the evidence laid by both the parties without being influenced by any of the observations made above. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43