- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:539 CRP No. 534 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 534 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHIKKAMMA W/O. LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SRI. HANUMANTHA RAJU S/O. LATE HUCHHAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 3. SRI. RAVI KUMAR S/O. LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 4. SRI NAGARAJU S.H. S/O. LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT ARASHINAKUNTE VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562127 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAY S N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI GANGAMURTHY S/O LT HANUMANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:539 CRP No. 534 of 2025 R/O CHOLURAPALYA HAMLET OF ARASHINAKUNTE VILLAGE SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562127. 2. SRI. HANUMANTHA RAJU, S/O. LATE GANGA SANJEEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 3. SRI RAMACHANDRAIAH. S/O. HANUMANTHA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 4. SRI RAMESH S/O. HANUMANTHA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 5. SRI RAMAIAH, S/O. LATE GANGA SANJEEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 ARE ALL R/O CHOLUR PALYA VILLAGE HAMLET OF ARASHINAKUNTE SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562127 6. HANUMANTHAIAH @ GANGAMARAIAH S/O. LATE APPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. 11TH CROSS, INDIRA NAGAR, KYATHASANDRA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R.NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 V/O DT. 11.11.2025 NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:539 CRP No. 534 of 2025 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 5 IN OS NO.627/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MAGADI, REJECTING THE IA NO. 5 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a, b AND d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed at the hands of Defendants No.5 to 8 in O.S.No.627 of 2024, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi, being aggrieved of the rejection of their application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. Learned Counsel for defendants No.5 to 8 submits that a plain reading of the plaint clearly shows that the plaintiff has not sought for any prayer as against defendants No.5 to 8 and there is no cause of action made - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:539 CRP No. 534 of 2025 out in the plaint as against the said defendants. It is contented that the statement made in paragraph No.3 of the plaint that the suit schedule property was acquired by one Sri.Appaiah S/o Huchaiah, from the Government under ‘Grow More Food Scheme’ and that after the death of Sri.Appaiah, his sons by name Sri.Hucha Hanunumaiah and Sri.Hanumantaiah have inherited the suit schedule property and they sold the suit schedule property under a registered Sale Deed dated 08.06.1978 in favour of the plaintiff's grandfather-Sri.Ganga Sanjivaiah @ Motaiah, are all incorrect statements not supported by any evidence. It is contented that no scrap of paper has been placed along with the plaint to establish the claim of the plaintiff. It is contented that no revenue records have been furnished along with the plaint to establish the claim of the plaintiff. Moreover, without seeking a declaration that the plaintiff are the owners of the property and without seeking possession from defendants No.5 to 8, the suit has been filed only seeking partition that the suit schedule - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:539 CRP No. 534 of 2025 properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4. 4. It is further submitted that nowhere any statement has been made in the plaint that the defendants No.5 to 8 are not the owners of the property and no declaration in that regard has been sought in the plaint. Therefore, defendants No.5 to 8 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. Learned Counsel would further point out from paragraph No.29 of the impugned order and submits that the Trial Court has expressed its opinion that even though it is convinced with some of the arguments put forth by the learned Advocate for defendants No.5 to 8, who has crisply and intelligently presented the case with all due reasons, nevertheless, going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Mahavir Lunia, the benefit of doubt is given to the plaintiff. Learned Counsel submits that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:539 CRP No. 534 of 2025 such a concept of giving benefit of doubt does not arise in a civil matter. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that prayer No.1 in the plaint clearly seeks a declaration that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4. By seeking such a declaration the plaintiff is clearly contesting the claim of defendants No.5 to 8 over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff by seeking such a declaration has challenged the claim put forth by defendants No.5 to 8 and the plaintiff has also stated very clearly as to why the suit has been filed against defendants No.5 to 8. It is stated in the plaint that the defendants No.5 to 8 are strangers to the suit schedule properties and they have no manner of right, title or interest or possession over the suit schedule properties, but still they are laying claim and therefore, they have sought for a declaration. The learned Counsel therefore submits that the Trial Court has considered the rival - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:539 CRP No. 534 of 2025 contentions of defendants No.5 to 8 and the plaintiff and has rightly rejected the application filed by defendants No.5 to 8. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for defendants No.5 to 8 and learned Counsel for the plaintiff, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has not erred in passing the impugned order. An application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is required to clearly make out a case within the scope of Rule 11 of Order VII. The contention of the learned Counsel for defendants No.5 to 8 that there is no cause of action in the plaint as against defendants No.5 to 8 and there is no prayer sought against defendants No.5 to 8, cannot be accepted. When the plaintiff has clearly stated that defendants No.5 to 8 are strangers to the suit schedule property and they have no manner of right, title or interest in the suit schedule property and have further sought for a declaration that the plaintiff along with defendants No.1 to 4 alone are entitled for a share each in the suit schedule property, it would - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:539 CRP No. 534 of 2025 mean that the suit is between the plaintiff and defendants No.5 to 9. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court having found no infirmity in the impugned order, proceeds to dismiss the petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 8. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL