- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2026 (DEC/PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S.P. HOMBANNA S/O. LATE SRI. S.J. PADMA RAJ AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT. NO.507, 9TH CROSS OPP. PATHANJALI YOGA CENTRE SADASHIVANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 080. 2. SRI. V. SURESH S/O. LATE SRI. V.S. MURTHY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT. NO. 117, 22 'A' CROSS 23RD MAIN, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 070. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MUNIRAJA .M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SHASHIREKHA R @ SHASHIREKHA JAGADISH W/O. LATE SRI. R. JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT. NO.301, 6TH MAIN ROAD MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 086. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NARASIMHA RAJESH .K.S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 THIS RFA IS FILED U/S. 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. V IN OS NO. 4278/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA NO.V FILED U/O VII RULE 11 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the order of the learned Judge in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiffs have instituted the suit in O.S. No.4278/2024 seeking a declaration that the registered partition deed dated 01.09.2005 is merely an internal arrangement between the plaintiffs and late R. Jagadeesh, husband of defendant. Consequently, the plaintiffs have - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 sought a declaration that the gift deed executed by late R. Jagadeesh in favour of defendant is null and void and not binding on them. A further relief of perpetual injunction is also sought restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ alleged rights over the suit schedule property. It is not in dispute that the partition deed dated 01.09.2005 is a registered document and that the plaintiffs are parties to the said instrument. The pleadings in the plaint also disclose that the gift deed executed by late R. Jagadeesh in favour of the defendant is founded on the allotment made under the said registered partition deed. 4. Upon receipt of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and that the suit is ex facie barred by limitation. The said application - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 was contested by the plaintiffs by filing detailed objections. 5. The learned Trial Judge, on examination of the plaint averments and the registered partition deed dated 01.09.2005, has held that the suit instituted in the year 2024, nearly two decades after execution of the registered partition deed, is clearly barred by limitation. The Trial Court has further held that the plaint does not disclose a legally sustainable cause of action, inasmuch as the plaintiffs have failed to seek appropriate relief to set aside or invalidate the registered partition deed. On these findings, the plaint came to be rejected by invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. 6. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of plaint, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel appearing for the defendant. This Court has carefully perused the pleadings, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 the impugned order, and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Upon such consideration, the following points arise for determination: i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure? ii) Whether the plaintiffs, without seeking to challenge or set aside the registered partition deed dated 01.09.2005, have the locus standi to question the gift deed executed by late R. Jagadeesh in favour of the defendant? iii) What order? Finding on Point Nos. i and ii: 8. Before adverting to the correctness of the impugned order, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the prayer sought in the plaint, as the nature of reliefs claimed has a direct bearing on the issue of maintainability. A careful reading of the plaint discloses that the plaintiffs have consciously avoided seeking any - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 substantive relief for cancellation or setting aside of the registered partition deed dated 01.09.2005, to which they are admittedly parties. Instead, the plaintiffs have sought to characterize the said registered instrument as a mere internal arrangement and, on that basis, seek to invalidate the subsequent gift deed executed by late R. Jagadeesh. Such a course, in the considered view of this Court, is legally impermissible, as long as the registered partition deed continues to subsist and remains unchallenged in the manner known to law. The prayer sought in the plaint, therefore, assumes significance and same is extracted as under: "a) Declaring that the document registered as No.3524/2005-06 in the office of Central Sub- Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru dated 01.09.2005 produced as Document-B is only a document of internal arrangement between the plaintiffs and late R.Jagadeesh; b) Declare that the alleged Gift deed registered as Document No.VJN-1-04338-2020-21 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 of the Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, is void in law and not binding on the plaintiffs; c) Declare that the plaintiffs are even now are the co-owners of the suit schedule property; d) Pass an order of consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and her agents, henchmen, servants, assigns, administrators or anybody acting or claiming on her behalf from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of anybody in any form without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs; e) Pass such other order/s as deemed fit to pass with court costs, under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." (Emphasis supplied) 9. A careful examination of the prayer extracted hereinabove would unmistakably demonstrate that the plaintiffs have consciously refrained from seeking any declaratory relief to set aside, cancel, or declare as void the registered partition deed dated 01.09.2005. On the contrary, the plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 said registered partition deed is a mere “internal arrangement” and, on that premise, have proceeded to assail the subsequent gift deed executed by late R. Jagadeesh in favour of the defendant. Such a relief, in the considered view of this Court, is inherently misconceived. Once a partition deed is registered and acted upon, it attains legal finality and binds the parties thereto, unless it is set aside by a competent Court in a properly instituted suit. As long as the registered partition deed subsists, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to indirectly undermine its legal effect by seeking to invalidate a subsequent alienation founded upon rights flowing from the said partition. 10. It is trite law that when a plaintiff seeks a declaration, the relief must be comprehensive and must remove the cloud on title in its entirety. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 clearly mandates that no Court shall make a declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration, omits to do so. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 In the present case, the pleadings in the plaint themselves disclose that the alleged grievance of the plaintiffs arises from the execution of the registered partition deed dated 01.09.2005. If that be so, the primary and substantive relief which the plaintiffs were required to seek was a declaration setting aside the said partition deed on legally sustainable grounds and within the period of limitation. Having failed to do so, the plaintiffs cannot maintain a suit questioning the validity of the gift deed, which is only a consequential transaction. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to extract the relevant covenants of the registered partition deed. The same are extracted which reads as under: "4. The PARTIES hereto assure amongst themselves that neither of the PARTIES hereto have done any act whereby the schedule "A" property may be subjected to any Court attachment or lien of any person or persons and that the schedule "A" property has been allotted to the share of the SECOND PARTY together with encumbrances thereon and which shall - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 be cleared by the SECOND PARTY alone and that the 1st and 3rd PARTY shall not be liable for the same. 5. The PARTIES hereto have this day accepted their respective allotments and have taken possession of their respective shares and shall hold possess and enjoy their respective shares absolutely without any let or hindrance or interruptions, disturbance from anyone. The SECOND PARTY has been alloted the "B" Schedule property absolutely and he shall be entitled to deal with the same in any he may choose without any reference or concurrence of the FIRST AND THIRD PARTY. 6. Each of the PARTIES hereto shall at the request and cost of the other PARTIES hereto shall execute and perform or cause to be done, executed and performed all and every such acts, deeds and things whatsoever as may be required for further and more perfectly assuring the allotments hereunder made and placing them in possession of the same according to the intents and meanings of these presents as shall or may be reasonably required. 7. The PARTIES hereto have mutually agreed that the Partition hereto made is according to the convenience and that neither Party hereto shall challenge the partition on the ground that they are unequal. The Parties further agree that this Partition - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 shall not be reopened or challenged under any circumstances by reason of any error or omission whatsoever. But the Parties shall execute and register such further deed or deeds as may be necessary for the full and effective implementation of this Partition in all its intents and contents. The Parties hereto have mutually accepted their respective shares." 11. A close and meaningful reading of the extracted covenants of the registered partition deed leaves no manner of doubt that the partition was final, complete, and acted upon by all the parties thereto. The recitals unequivocally record that the parties have accepted their respective allotments, have taken possession of their respective shares, and have agreed to hold, possess, and enjoy the same absolutely, without let, hindrance, or interruption from any person whomsoever. More significantly, the covenants expressly confer absolute rights upon the Second Party (late R. Jagadeesh, husband of Defendant) in respect of the property allotted to his share, including an unfettered right to deal with the said - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 property in any manner of his choice, without reference to or concurrence of the First and Third Parties. The parties have further covenanted that the partition shall not be reopened or challenged on any ground whatsoever, including inequality of shares, and that the allotments are final and binding. 12. In view of these unequivocal terms, this Court has no hesitation in holding that late R. Jagadeesh was declared and recognized as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property under the registered partition deed. Once such absolute ownership stood vested, the right to alienate the property, including by way of gift, is a natural and inseparable legal incident of ownership. 13. The suit, therefore, is not only barred by limitation, but also suffers from a fundamental defect of want of cause of action. The Trial Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, has rightly confined itself to the averments in the plaint and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 has correctly concluded that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and that the suit is ex facie barred by law. 14. Viewed in the aforesaid backdrop, the relief sought by the plaintiffs is wholly misconceived and legally untenable. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates that a person seeking a declaratory relief must seek all consequential and substantive reliefs to which he is entitled. A bare declaration that the registered partition deed of the year 2005 is a mere internal arrangement, without seeking its cancellation or a declaration setting it aside, runs directly contrary to the explicit terms and legal effect of the said registered instrument. The plaint averments themselves disclose that the plaintiffs had divested their rights in the suit schedule property under the partition deed, pursuant to which ownership stood vested in late R. Jagadeesh. Having allowed the partition deed to remain unchallenged for nearly nineteen years and having admittedly acted upon the same, the plaintiffs cannot now be permitted to indirectly impeach the rights - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 flowing from the partition by questioning a subsequent gift deed executed by the absolute owner. 15. Even assuming the plaint averments to be true on their face value, any challenge to the partition deed is clearly barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963. In the absence of any challenge to the registered partition deed, no cause of action accrues to the plaintiffs to seek cancellation or invalidation of the gift deed executed by late R. Jagadeesh in favour of the defendant. The suit, therefore, is ex facie barred by law and squarely attracts Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint by confining itself to the plaint averments and the admitted documents. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs are clearly distinguishable on facts and have no application to the present case. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the affirmative and Point No.(ii) in the negative. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6744 RFA No. 59 of 2026 Finding on Point No. iii: 16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12