- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5469-DB RFA No. 1688 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1688 OF 2014 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NANJUNDA MURTHY S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NO.479 MG ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101 2. SRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO.265 SHRUTHI NILAYA, M.G.ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT -562101. 3. SRI.SUBRAMANI S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, DODDATHEKAHALLI BESATTAHALLI POST SHILDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105. 4. SRI RAJKUMAR S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5469-DB RFA No. 1688 of 2014 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.333 SUBRAMANYA NILAYA, MARALU SIDDESHWARA NILAYA, NEW BUS STAND MG ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT -562101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NANDA KISHORE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI L PRAHALNADA RAO S/O LATE G.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO, T-21, 33RD A CROSS, 11TH MAIN, IVTH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BANGALORE-560 041. ALSO RESIDING AT: 1505 ORCHID LOKHANDWALA TOWNSHIP KANDIVLI E MUMBAI-400 101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO FOR SRI. B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 10.04.2014 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.3080/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED U/O-7, RULE-11, R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5469-DB RFA No. 1688 of 2014 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short) impugning the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2014 passed by the court of XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH 39) in OS No. 3080/2012 filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. The suit was filed for partition of the suit schedule property bearing KHB Site No. 21, New No. 21/5, measuring 40 feet x 52 ½ feet situated at No. T-21, 33rd A cross, 11th Main, 4th T-block, Jayanagara, Bangalore 560041. The defendants/respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by law and principle of res judicata. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5469-DB RFA No. 1688 of 2014 2. Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree noticed the fact that the father of the plaintiffs filed a partition suit in O.S.No. 63/1989 in respect of the same very property. The said suit came to be rejected on 31.08.1995. However, the suit in respect of other suit schedule property was decreed. 3. The plaintiffs while contesting the said application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC took a contention that they were not the parties in the suit proceedings. All the family members had generously contributed towards the purchase of the suit schedule property, besides that they were not the parties to the suit filed by their father. 4. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the father was staying separately from them. Obviously this would mean that the suit was filed by the kartha of the family, which came to be dismissed in respect of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the trial Court having considered the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5469-DB RFA No. 1688 of 2014 judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 63/1989 filed by the father has rejected the plaint. The plaintiffs never filed the suit till their father was alive but they have filed the suit after the father died. We are therefore of the view that the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2014 passed in O.S.No. 3080/2012 filed by the appellant rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC does not require an interference by this Court. We therefore dismiss this appeal without cost. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22