Dismissed

Sri Muniyellappa v. Sri Munikrishnappa

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2022CRP/377/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed against an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The Court held there was no error in the trial judge's view that only plaint averments matter for such applications, not defence evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 377 of 2022) and the connected I.A. No.1/2022 were dismissed.

Sri Muniyellappa Vs Sri Munikrishnappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRP No. 377 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 377 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI MUNIYELLAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. SAMPANGAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA AGED 62 YEARS R/AT 28, 3RD A MAIN ROAD 9TH A CROSS,AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560079

¶10

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SMT MUNILAKSHMAMMA W/O PUTTARAMAPPA D/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED 76 YEARS R/AT THAMMENAHALLI PALYA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560107.

¶12

SRI M DEVARAJA AGED 49 YEARS S/O MUNIANAJANAPPA R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI GRAMA JAKKUR POST YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU - 560064.

¶13

¶14

CRP No. 377 of 2022

¶15

SMT. M RENUKA AGED 41 YEARS W/O M DEVARAJA R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI GRAMA JAKKUR POST YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU - 560064

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶20

SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED 55 YEARS R/AT INDIRA COLONY, CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI BENGALURU - 560091.

¶21

SMT. DANALAKSHMI D/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED 35 YEARS R/AT INDIRA COLONY, CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI BENGALURU - 560091.

¶22

SRI DEVARAJU S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED 30 YEARS R/AT INDIRA COLONY, CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI BENGALURU - 560091.

¶23

SMT. MANJULA THE SUIT IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AGAINST DEFENDANT NO.3, AS IN VIEW OF THE TRIAL COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED ON IA 27-29 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 25.05.2022.

¶24

¶25

CRP No. 377 of 2022

¶26

SMT. PUTTAMMA AGED 35 YEARS R/AT INDIRA COLONY, CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI BENGALURU - 560091

¶27

SRI RAJEEV KUMAR RAI S/O RAJNARAIN RAI AGED 44 YEARS OFFICE NO.8/9, 27TH CROSS OPP MONOTYPE, BSK 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560070

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.30 IN O.S.NO.6950/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND HOLDING C/C OF XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, REJECTING I.A NO.30 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (c) OF CPC.

¶30

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2022 on I.A.No.30 in O.S.No.6950/2009 by XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, the defendant No.1(a), 2, 5 and 6 have filed this petition.

¶33

The plaintiffs in the original suit have filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The defendant Nos.1(a),

¶34

¶35

CRP No. 377 of 2022

¶36

2, 5 and 6 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) &

¶37

(c) of CPC with a prayer to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit does not disclose a cause of action and that relief claimed is not properly valued. The case of the applicants is that the plaintiffs were required to pray for cancellation of the sale deed, which they have not done and that advalorem Court fee has to be paid on the value of the subject matter of the sale deed. On the said ground, it is contended that the plaint ought to have been rejected.

¶38

The trial Court upon noticing that the plaintiffs were not party to the sale deed and the said deed was executed between two different persons and the plaintiffs have prayed for a relief that the said sale deed is not binding on them as per the plaint averments they have ancestral right over the suit schedule property and the sale deed has been executed without making them a party has rightly concluded that appropriate fees has been paid on the said prayer and they are not required to seek for cancellation of the sale deed.

¶39

¶40

CRP No. 377 of 2022

¶41

The petitioner is unable to show as to how the said conclusion of the trial Court is erroneous.

¶42

With regard to cause of action, the case of the applicants is that the plaintiffs are no way concerned with the joint family property and the evidence let in goes to show the same and on the said ground, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed for lack of cause of action. However, the trial Court on the ground that while considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (c) of CPC, the Court has to consider only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else and averments made in the plaint shows that there is a cause of action, , the application has been rejected.

¶43

I find no error in the reasoning of the trial Court. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering an application made in Order VII Rule 11(a) & (c) of CPC, the Court has to take into consideration only the averments made in the plaint along with the documents produced there

¶44

¶45

CRP No. 377 of 2022

¶46

under but not the defence taken in the written statement or the evidence let in. If contrary evidence is let in and if the plaintiff is unable to prove his case then eventually the defendant will succeed after the trial but that cannot be a reason to reject the plaint by passing an order under VII Rule 11 (a) & (c) of CPC.

¶47

The revision being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed .

¶48

In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sri Muniyellappa v. Sri Munikrishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muniyellappa v. Sri Munikrishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Million Lights Vs Mr. Mahesh

Sri. Saravana Kumar Vs Smt. Jayaprabha. N

Sri Abdul Salam Vs the Superintendent of Customs

M Subramanyam Vs H Srinivas

Smt. Jyothi. M. S. Vs Sri. Annappa

Smt. Suma Bhat Vs Sri Gururaj S