- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4693-DB RFA No. 1301 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1301 OF 2017 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SATHYAVATHI D/O LATE VENKATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13, KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560050. 2. SMT. KAMAKSHI D/O LATE VENKATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.34, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, ADITHYANAGARA, KOTHANUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560062. 3. SMT. RAJESHWARI D/O LATE VENKATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING NO.590, 23RD CROSS, K.H.B. COLONY, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, GIRINAGARA, BANGALORE-560050. …APPELLANTS - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4693-DB RFA No. 1301 of 2017 (BY SRI R. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVARAJU H.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI VENKATARAJU S/O LATE VENKATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. SRI KANTHARAJ S/O LATE VENKATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE VENKATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 4. SRI RAJESH S/O LATE VENKATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT MATTANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106. 5. SRI R. SEETHARAMAIAH S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 6. SRI NAGARAJ S/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 7. SRI. SUBRAMANI S/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT MATTANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4693-DB RFA No. 1301 of 2017 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106. 8. SMT. GIRIJA D/O R. SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PAPAIAH GARDEN, KHB COLONY, 2ND STAGE, BEHIND AYURVEDIC COLLEGE, BENGALURU-560079. 9. SMT. HAMSAVENI D/O R. SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.114, 2ND CROSS, 16TH MAIN, HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560022. 10. SRI RAJAREDDY S/O CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 11. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O RAJAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 12. SRI.R. RAMU S/O RAJAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 13. SRI LAKSHMAN S/O RAJAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.10 TO 13 ARE RESIDING AT SOMPURA GATE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106. 14. SRI BASAVARAJ S/O APPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4693-DB RFA No. 1301 of 2017 RESIDING AT MATTANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 AND ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 03.02.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.622/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.14 U/O 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) This Regular First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal in Original - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4693-DB RFA No. 1301 of 2017 Suit No.622 of 2013, whereby the plaint of the appellants/plaintiffs has been rejected. 2. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC stating that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit was barred by law in view of the partition which took place way back on 29.07.1984. 3. A partition took place between Sri Venkatapathi and his brother Sri R Seetharamaiah on 29.07.1984. Sri Venkatapathy was the father of the plaintiffs and Sri Seetharamaiah (defendant No.5) was the father of the defendants Nos.1 to 4. Since the date of the partition i.e., 29.07.1984, Sri Venkatapathi and Sri Seeta Ramaiah were in separate possession of their properties as per the partition deed. The father of the plaintiffs namely Venkatapathi has alienated the suit properties through registered Sale Deeds dated 26.07.1985 and 08.08.1986. The plaintiffs who are the married daughters of Venkatpathi have filed the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4693-DB RFA No. 1301 of 2017 4. The relevant paragraphs of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 paragraphs 4 to 6 would read as under: "4. I submit that, father of the plaintiffs alienated his share in Sy.No.54 and Sy.No.56 I.e., suit item No.1 and 2 favour of Seetharamaiah- the defendant No.5 herein and gave consent to effect katha in the name of Seetharamaiah. Revenue officials mutated the katha of the said properties in the name of Seetharamaiah under vide MR.No.65/1995-96. 5. I submit that, partition is effected between the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.5 herein in the year 1984 itself. Plaintiffs suppressed the true facts and filed this false case only to harass these defendants. On this ground suit is liable to be dismissed. There is a settled position of law that person who suppressed the material facts is not entitled for any relief. 6. I submit that, the above suit is for partition and declaration etc., is also not maintainable on the further ground that, the plaintiff has suppressed about the sale deeds executed by the plaintiff's father, mother and brothers. The plaintiffs herein have deliberately suppressed the above facts and have come up with the above false, frivolous and vexatious suit which is nothing but, a clear case of fraud, committed not only against the parties but, with the Hon'ble Court - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4693-DB RFA No. 1301 of 2017 also. That, this is a typical case of utmost abuse of the process of the Court. Such, tendency shall be curbed/crushed as held by the Apex Court in its various decisions." 5. The plaintiffs have not denied the execution of the registered Sale Deeds in respect of the suit properties by their father. They have only expressed their ignorance. As the documents are the registered one, the same could not have been denied. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and averments in the application, the Trial Court has been of the opinion that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs suppressing the material fact that their father had already alienated the suit properties prior to 20.12.2004 and therefore, the question of succession of the suit property would not arise. Even the plaint averments would reveal that the plaintiffs were not in joint possession of the suit properties. When the father of the plaintiffs had disposed of the suit properties through registered Sale Deeds in favour of different persons, the question of partition of those properties would not arise. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4693-DB RFA No. 1301 of 2017 7. We are of the view that the Trial Court has taken a correct view as the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for partition of the suit properties, which stood alienated by their father through registered Sale Deeds prior to 20.12.2004. Thus, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (D K SINGH) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA