Dismissed¶87

Sri Appaji v. Smt Thulasi

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025CRP/56/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; V Srishananda J.; decided 06.11.2025; CRP No. 56 of 2022; Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejection of plaint; plaint cannot be rejected at threshold on a party's averments; previous partition a disputed fact requiring full-fledged trial; maintainability of partition suit; purchaser-defendant; valid sale deeds; O.S. No.258/2017; Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Hosakote; Devanagundi Village; Section 115 CPC revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The plea of factum of previous partition (printed in the order as 'previous petition') is a matter that needs to be established during the trial as a defence, not resolved on a rejection-of-plaint application. ¶76

Sri Appaji Vs Smt Thulasi — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44880 CRP No. 56 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 56 OF 2022 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI APPAJI S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT 1^ST CROSS, OPP. GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, NEAR DR.SRINIVAS CLINIC, CHANNASANDRA, KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU - 560 067

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT THULASI

¶14

W/O D.M.SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶15

SRI.D.S.RAMESH S/O D.M.SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶16

SRI.D.M.SUBBANNA S/O LATE MUNISHAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44880 CRP No. 56 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O D.M.SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶20

SRI.D.S.SANSTHOSH KUMAR S/O D.M.SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶21

SRI.D.S.NATESH S/O D.M.SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶22

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT DEVANAGUNDI VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067.

¶23

SRI. N. SANJEEVAREDDY S/O PILLAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT J.K.PURA VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 121.

¶24

SMT.PAPAMMA W/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶25

SMT.SHIVAMMA D/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶26

SMT.SHYLA D/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44880 CRP No. 56 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

11. SMT.SUMA

¶30

D/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶31

R8 TO R11 ARE R/AT 1^ST CROSS, OPP. GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, NEAR DR. SRINIVAS CLINIC, CHANNASANDRA, KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU - 560 067.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. G.B. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.III IN O.S.NO.258/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Heard Sri. P.N. Rajeshwara, learned counsel for

¶39

the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:44880 CRP No. 56 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Tenth defendant is the revision petitioner

¶44

challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide IA No.3 filed in O.S. No.258 of 2017 passed by Learned Principal Civil Judge, JMFC, Hosakote on 16.12.2021.

¶45

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶46

3.1 Respondents No.1 and 2 filed suit in O.S. No.258/2017 for the relief of partition and separation possession in respect of following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as suit property):

¶47

SCHEDULE

¶48

Part and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.110 measuring to an extent of 32 guntas of Devanagundi Village, Anugondana Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, bounded on :

¶49

East by	:	Chandrappa's land
West by	:	20 feet Road
North by	:	Gopala's land
South by	:	Main S/o. Ramaswamy land

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:44880 CRP No. 56 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Plaintiffs contended that defendant No.1 had

¶54

two wives namely Rathnamma and Smt. Tulasi. Plaintiffs further content that Plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 4 constituted Hindu undivided family and suit properties are ancestral properties of the joint family.

¶55

The suit property earlier belonged to the father of first defendant namely Munishami and he had allotted the suit property in favour of second defendant in which plaintiffs also possess their legitimate share and thus sought for partition of the suit property.

¶56

Revision petitioner being the tenth defendant in

¶57

the suit is the purchaser of the suit property. Second defendant sold the suit property in favour of fifth defendant. Fifth defendant in turn sold the suit property in favour of tenth defendant.

¶58

Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and tenth defendant filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:44880 CRP No. 56 of 2022

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

contending that by virtue of the earlier partition, second defendant had every right to sell the property in favour of fifth defendant. As such, fifth defendant in turn sold the property in favour of the tenth defendant. Hence, suit is not maintainable in view of valid sale deeds.

¶63

Learned Trial judge, on contest, dismissed the

¶64

said application.

¶65

Being agreed by the same, tenth defendant is before this court.

¶66

Sri. P.N. Rajeshwara, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the fact that second defendant had sold the property after the property had fell to the share of the second defendant at a partition.

¶67

Therefore, dismissal of the application filed by

¶68

the tenth defendant seeking rejection of plaint by passing

¶69

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:44880 CRP No. 56 of 2022

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

impugned Order has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶73

None appears for the respondents.

¶74

In the light of the argument put forth on behalf

¶75

of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶76

On such perusal of the material on record, it is found that the plea of factum of previous petition is a matter that needs to be established during the trial as a defence.

¶77

Based on the averments of any one of the

¶78

parties to the suit, plaint cannot be thrown out at the threshold by exercising the power vested in the Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶79