- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3760 CRP No. 156 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 156 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI. SRIPAL JAIN S/O GOWTHAM CHAND JAIN, AGED 38 YEARS, R/AT NEHRU NAGAR, 23/3, RAILWAY STATION, PARALLEL ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHUVANENDRA RAJU P AND SRI. P.B RAJU, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. S. SREENIVAS S/O SHIVARAMAIAH AGED 38 YEARS, 2. M.S.MANJULA D/O SHIVARAMAIAH AGED 32 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE AGRICULTURISTS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MALLASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST, KASBA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101. 3. SHARADAMMA G W/O RAMASWAMY NAYAKA, SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS, Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3760 CRP No. 156 of 2023 a) RAMASWAMY NAYAK H.C. S/O LATE CHINNAGIRINAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, b) RAMESH H R S/O LATE SHARADAMMA G AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, c) SURESH H.R. S/O LATE SHARADAMMA G AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, d) SHOBHA W/O LATE PRABHAKARA H.R.A AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT C/A NARASIMHAMURTHY C H.NO.693, KUMBARA BEEDI, NEAR GANGAMMA TEMPLE, HESARAGHATTA, BANALORE – 560 088. 4. KANUMAKKA @ RAJAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 5. NATARAJ S/O BALAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 6. PRAJVAL S/O NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 7. PAVAN S/O NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, 8. HARISH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3760 CRP No. 156 of 2023 9. REKHA W/O MADHUSUDHANA NAYAKA, D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NOS. 4 TO 9 ARE ALL R/AT GANDHINAGARA, SIRA TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137. 10. G.SUNANDA D/O LATE GUJJARAPPA W/O L SIDDESHWARA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT SIDDANAYAKA CIRCLE, HIRIYUR TOWN-572 143. 11. VANITHA S W/O G.KUMARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 12. AKASH S/O LATE G.KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 13. ASHISH S/O LATE G.KUMARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NOS.11 TO 13 ARE ALL RESIDING AT M.C.ANJANEYAPPA AND SONS BUILDING, SRI.VARI NILAYAM, NO.20, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, V NAGENAHALI MAIN ROAD, HEBBAL GUDADAHALLI, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RATHAN.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; V/O DATED 19.12.2025, NOTICE TO R3 TO R13 IS D/W) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.10 IN OS NO.5/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3760 CRP No. 156 of 2023 AND JMFC, HIRIYUR. REJECTING THE IA NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(A AND B) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by defendant No.12, in O.S.No.5/2014, being aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hiriyur, rejecting the application filed in I.A.No.10 under Order VII Rule 11(a)and (b) of CPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court. 3. The suit was filed by three grandchildren of late Smt. Puttamma, W/o Gujjarappa seeking partition and separate possession initially. However, subsequently - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3760 CRP No. 156 of 2023 defendant No.12 was impleaded while also seeking amendment of the plaint and pursuant to the amendment, to include a prayer to declare the alleged sale deed dated 11.02.2013 as illegal and void and further seeking a declaration that the registered partition deed dated 05.11.2004 and any other documents created by Smt. Puttamma, the 2nd defendant Smt. Kannumakka and her husband, defendant No.9 – Sri G.Kumaraswamy are not binding on the shares of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 8. Learned counsel for defendant No.12 submits that a plain reading of the plaint even after amendment does not disclose any cause of action against defendant No.12. Learned counsel submits that nowhere in the plaint, the plaintiffs have claimed that the property in question viz., item No.1 of the suit schedule property was acquired by Smt.Puttamma through her ancestors. Moreover, when admittedly item No.1 belonged to Smt. Puttamma and during her lifetime she sold the property in favour of defendant No.12 by registered sale deed dated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3760 CRP No. 156 of 2023 11.02.2013, the plaintiffs have failed to make out a case for partition of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Learned counsel submits that it is for the plaintiff to show the cause of action in the plaint against defendant No.12. 4. However, on the previous occasion this Court had put a question to the learned counsel for petitioner as to whether the plaint could be rejected only against defendant No.12. For that purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner has today placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Motharma Pool Sundari .v. Gurban Singh and others - AIR 1957 Rajasthan 97, where it was held that when the court rejects a plaint against a particular defendant, holding that there is no cause of action against the defendant, there is a formal expression of adjudication by that court and so far as that court is concerned, that expression of adjudication conclusively determines the right of the parties, viz., that in the view of that court, the plaintiff has no right to a decree against that defendant. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3760 CRP No. 156 of 2023 Learned counsel further places reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society .v. Ponniyaman Educational Trust - 2012 8 SCC 706, where it was held that in view of the shortfall in the plaint averments and statutory provisions, namely, Order VII Rule 11, Rule 14(1) and Rule 14(2), forms 47 and 48 in Appendix-A of the Code, which are statutory in nature, the Apex Court held that the learned single judge of the High Court had correctly concluded that in the absence of any cause of action shown as against the 1st defendant, the suit cannot be proceeded either for specific performance or for the recovery of money advanced which according to the plaintiff was given to the 2nd defendant in the suit and rightly rejected the plaint as against the 1st defendant. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs however submits that defendants No.1 & 8 namely, Smt. G. Sharadamma and Smt. G. Sunanda, who had executed the sale deed along with Smt. Puttamma in favour of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3760 CRP No. 156 of 2023 defendant No.12, have taken a stand in the written statement that defendant No.12 has failed to pay the sale consideration either to Smt.Puttamma or to defendant No.1 and 8. Learned counsel submits that a police complaint was lodged by defendant No.1 & 8 against defendant No.12 and an FIR was registered against defendant No.12. However, subsequently the FIR was quashed holding that the dispute is of a civil nature and therefore the complainants were directed to have recourse to a civil litigation. In that view of the matter, learned counsel submits that the matter requires a full-fledged trial and without trial, the said issues cannot be gone into and therefore at this stage the plaint cannot be rejected against defendant No.12. 6. Heard the learned counsel for defendant No.12, learned counsel for plaintiffs and perused the petition papers. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3760 CRP No. 156 of 2023 7. Having regard to the contentions raised by defendant No.12 in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (b) of CPC, this Court finds from the plain reading of the plaint that nowhere have the plaintiffs stated as to the nature of acquisition of the property more particularly item No.1 with which we are concerned. It is not stated as to whether Smt. Puttamma acquired the property by herself or whether she acquired it from her ancestors. Even otherwise, if it is presumed that item No.1 of the suit schedule property was acquired by Smt. Puttamma through her ancestors, it will not preclude Smt. Puttamma from disposing of the property. The bar placed on the dispossession of ancestral joint family property in terms of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, will not apply to a female Hindu, who acquires the same even under a partition. The express provision contained in section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 declares that any property possessed by a Hindu female acquired either before or after the commencement of the Hindu - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3760 CRP No. 156 of 2023 Succession Act, 1956 shall be held by her as fully owned and not limitedly owned. Nevertheless, since no such information is forthcoming from a plain reading of the plaint, merely by stating that fraud was played on Smt. Puttamma, the plaintiffs cannot seek such a declaration that the sale deed is not binding on the shares of the plaintiffs. The pliant averments do not disclose any pre- existing rights of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Moreover, since defendant No.1 and 8 could have instituted a suit for either seeking cancellation of the sale deed or for recovery of the sale consideration and they have failed to file such a suit, it will not enable the plaintiffs to make such a prayer in the suit on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 8 against defendant No.12. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.12 is therefore right in his submission that a plain reading of the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against defendant No.12. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3760 CRP No. 156 of 2023 8. Further, having regard to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for petitioner, it is clear that it is permissible for the court to reject a plaint as against one defendant. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 23.01.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hiriyuru in O.S. No.5/2014 on I.A. No.10 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the application in I.A.No.10 filed by defendant No.12 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (b) of CPC is allowed and the plaint stands rejected insofar as defendant No.12 is concerned. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY