- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31969 CRP No. 381 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. 381 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE SOMANNA D/O LATE B KAREGOUDRU NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, HOUSE MAKER. 2. KARIBASAPPA B.K S/O LATE B KAREGOUDRU NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, AGRICULTURALIST. 3. HANUMANTHAPPA B.K S/O LATE B KAREGOUDRU NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, AGRICULTURALIST, 4. GANGAMMA W/O PAMPANNA D/O LATE B KAREGOUDRU NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS HOUSE MAKER. 5. DEVENDRAPPA B.K S/O LATE B KAREGOUDRU NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, AGRICULTURALIST. 6. MANJUNATHA B.K S/O LATE B KAREGOUDRU NINGAPPA, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31969 CRP No. 381 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, AGRICULTURALIST, 7. RATHANA W/O LATE KARIBASAPPA, D/O LATE BASARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HOUSE MAKER, CHEELURU, HONNALI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-562112. 8. SHEELA W/O LATE ANANT-HARAJU, D/O LATE BASARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, HOUSE MAKER, SAGALA KATTE, JAGALURU TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577528. 9. MAHESHA S/O LATE BASARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, AGRIVCULTURALIST R/O BASAPURA, BOMBU BAZAR ROAD, DAVANGERE TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577001. 10. KAVITHA W/O LATE DEVENDRAPPA B.K AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HOUSE MAKER, BASAPURA, BOMBU BAZAR ROAD, DAVANGERE TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577001 THE PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 6, 9, 10 ARE RESIDENTS OF BASAPURA, BOMBU BAZAR ROAD, DAVANGERE TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. REVANNA BELLARY, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31969 CRP No. 381 of 2026 AND: SHIVANAGAPPA B K S/O LATE B KAREGOUDRU NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, AGRICULTURALIST, R/O BASAPURA, BOMBU BAZAR ROAD, DAVANGERE TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577001. …RESPONDENT THIS CRP IS FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2026, PASSED ON IA NO.II IN OS NO.246/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE IA NO. II FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(a), (d) AND (e) 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 25.02.2026 passed in I.A.No.II in O.S.No.246/2025 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere, the petitioners/defendants are before this Court. 2. The respondent herein has filed O.S.No.246/2025 seeking partition, possession and mesne profits. In that, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.II under Order 7 Rule 11(a) (d) (e) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31969 CRP No. 381 of 2026 read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the suit is filed without any rights, there are no ancestral properties, no joint family properties, and the schedule properties are not joint family properties. It is stated that rights have not accrued to the plaintiff to demand a share in the suit properties, which are self-acquired and exclusively belong to the defendants for having purchased the schedule properties. In the said properties, the plaintiff has no right as per law, and the cause of action stated by the plaintiff is illusive. It is stated that as per RA/CR/60/23 dated 26.10.2023 on the file of the AC Davanagere, it was ordered that the plaintiff has no rights in the suit properties in Sy.No.30 of 3 acres 28 guntas, Sy.No.50/2 of extent 37 guntas and Sy.No.51/2 of extent 1 acre 21 guntas, and the mutation is cancelled and ordered that B.K.Manjunatha named properties be ordered for joint names, and that order has become final and no appeal is filed. It is stated that the suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties. 3. The trial Court, by the impugned order, had dismissed I.A.No.II. While dismissing the application, the trial Court observed that, according to the defendants, there is no joint - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31969 CRP No. 381 of 2026 family properties and the plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule properties, and also placed the order passed by the AC, Davanagere, before the trial Court. The trial Court observed that, as per the plaint averments, it is the case of the plaintiff that the properties are joint family properties, whereas, according to the defendants, they are not joint family properties, and that it is a mixed question of fact and law which can only be decided during the trial. It is the case of the defendants that the suit is barred by law and that the plaintiff has pleaded an illusive cause of action. The trial Court observed that the plaintiff has clearly mentioned the cause of action for filing to the suit in para No.13 of the plaint, and that whatever grounds urged by defendant No.3 involve a mixed question of law and fact, and that, in order to decide the mixed question of law and fact, the trial Court has to consider the pleadings as well as the evidence adduced by the parties. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendants have not made out the case. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has misunderstood the facts in the plaint as well as the grounds in the I.A. The trial Court has not properly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31969 CRP No. 381 of 2026 appreciated the grounds taken by the defendant while considering the application filed seeking rejection of the plaint. The trial Court wrongly held that authorities are not applicable and held that I.A.No.II is not maintainable, without touching the maintainability, the cause of action, barred by law and non- production of documents. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. Though the authorities submitted by the defendants are completely applicable to the facts of the case, the trial Court has failed to consider the same, and the impugned order needs to be set aside. 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 considered. 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. This Court has perused the order passed by the trial Court and the grounds - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31969 CRP No. 381 of 2026 raised by the petitioner that the properties are self-acquired properties and there is no cause of action for partition. According to the plaintiff, it is joint family properties and he is entitled to partition. All these mixed questions of law and fact cannot be decided while considering an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and the trial Court had 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.: 58