- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5679-DB RFA No. 2911 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2911 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUNI AKKAYAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT BELLA HALLI, VEMGAL HOBLI KOLAR TALUK-563 102 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT SRIRAMANAGARA CHINTHAMANI CITY CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563 125 Digitally signed by BANGALORE ANJANAPPA KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5679-DB RFA No. 2911 of 2025 3. SMT. MUNI SONNAMMA @ RATHNAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O MARALUKUNTE VILLAGE CHIKKAJALA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 157 4. SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AND SONNAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT INDIPALYA WARD NO.16, CHITAMANI CITY CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563 125. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MUNIVENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KURUGAL VILLAGE VEMGAL HOBLI KOLAR TALUK-563 102. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5679-DB RFA No. 2911 of 2025 2. SMT. SHAMALAMMA W/O LATE RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. ARSHITHA D/O LATE RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 4. SRI. CHETHAN S/O LATE RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESPONDENTS No. 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT DODDAVALLABI VILLAGE NARASAPURA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK-563 133 5. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, 5TH FLOOR, KANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURT ROAD BENGLAURU-560 009. 6. SRI. V. RAJESH S/O K.M. VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5679-DB RFA No. 2911 of 2025 NARASAPURA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK- 563 133 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. UMESH B.N., ADV. FOR C/R6; R1 TO R5 - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH V.C.O. DT. 02.02.2026) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.8 IN O.S.NO.85/2023 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, KOLAR., ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.8 FILED U/O VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5679-DB RFA No. 2911 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kolar ('trial Court' for short) in O.S.No.85/2023, wherein the application filed by respondent No.6 was allowed and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. We have heard Shri. Somashekara K.M, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs as well as Shri. Umesh B.N., learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.6/defendant No.4. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can only be on the basis of the averments in the plaint. It is contended that from a plain reading of the order under appeal, it is clear that it is specifically on the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5679-DB RFA No. 2911 of 2025 basis of the averments of respondent No.6 herein in the written statement that the plaint has been rejected in respect of Item No.1 property. We also notice that the plaint was one filed for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties were three in number. The application preferred by respondent No.6 herein was only in respect of one item of the suit schedule property. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has relied on the following decisions:- • Kum. Geetha, D/o Late Krishna v. Nanjundaswamy and Ors. reported in AIR 2023 SC 5516; and • Sri. Boyenepally Srijayavardhan v. V. Nirupama Reddy and Ors passed in SLP (C) No.5732/2025 by order dated 29.07.2025. 5. It is a trite law that a plaint cannot be rejected partially. So also, it is clear that a plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of contentions raised by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5679-DB RFA No. 2911 of 2025 defendant in his written statement alone. We are supported in the said view by the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Kum. Geetha, D/o Late Krishna's case (supra) and Sri. Boyenepally Srijayavardhan's case (supra). 6. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the order under appeal is specifically one by which the suit for partition has been dismissed only in respect of one property. Further, we also notice that rejection of the plaint is specifically on the pleadings of defendant No.4 in his written statement. 7. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the rejection of plaint is unsustainable. Accordingly:- (i) The Regular First Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kolar in O.S.No.85/2023, is set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5679-DB RFA No. 2911 of 2025 (iii) The trial Court shall consider the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE CP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13