Muniraju Vs Galappa

SMT. SHIVAMAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE HEMANTH KUMAR (SON OF LATE THIPANNA) NOW AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.25 GANNIGARAPALYA, NEAR PIPELINE ROAD, TALAGHATTAPURA POST BENGALURU

¶26

SMT. LATHA D/O LATE THIPPANNA W/O VENKATESH NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING IN GULAKAMALE, TARALU POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

KESHAVA

¶30

SON OF LATE THIPPANNA NOW AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING IN GULAKAMALE, TARALU POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK

¶31

SMT. BHARATHI D/O LATE THIAPPANA NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING IN GULAKAMALE, TARALU POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK

¶32

SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA NOW AGED 60 YEARS RESIDENT OF K, CHOODAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.S. REVANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 NOTICE TO R1, R3 TO R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 02.12.2025)

¶35

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.1239/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (R) DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA NO.2/2025 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1239/2017 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.2 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby the said application filed by respondent No.2 - defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court, which rejected the plaint and consequently, dismissed the suit by passing the impugned order and judgment and decree, which are assailed in the present appeal.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.2 - defendant No.2 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to remaining respondents is dispensed with.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the plaintiffs claim to be the children of one late Sri. Muniyappa and Smt. Lakkamma, while defendant No.1 is the brother. It is contended that the aforesaid Sri. Muniyappa, father of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 was the son of Bullappa and Muniyamma, who had one more daughter Ms. Hanumakka, who died unmarried leaving behind her brother Sri. Muniyappa and plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to succeed to his estate including the suit schedule properties.

¶47

It is also contended in the plaint that the suit schedule properties were ancestral joint family properties of Bullappa and Guddaiah and on account of demise of Bullappa, the suit schedule properties devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, who became entitled to their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs further alleged that though defendant Nos.1 and 2 had propounded an alleged Will dated 13.11.1980, the said Will was illegal and invalid, which does not bind the plaintiffs, who are entitled to their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties and since defendant No.1 did not comply with the request made by the plaintiffs to effect, partition and separate

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs, they filed the instant suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

¶51

Defendant No.2, in addition to filing the written statement, also filed the instant application I.A.No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. It was contended that though defendant No.2 was not a family member of the family of either Bullappa or Muniyappa, defendant No.2, along with defendant No.1 and husband of defendant No.3 were beneficiaries under the aforesaid alleged Will dated 13.11.1980 alleged to have been executed by the aforesaid Bullappa in their favour and in terms of the said Will, the plaintiffs did not have any right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule properties and their claim for partition was liable to be rejected.

¶52

The said application I.A.No.2 filed by respondent No.2 - defendant No.2 having opposed by the appellants-plaintiffs, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I..A.No.2 and consequently, rejecting the plaint and dismissing the suit by passing the impugned order and judgment and decree, which are assailed in the present appeal.

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial

¶57

Court rejecting the plaint will indicate that the primary ground on which the Trial Court has proceeded to reject the plaint by coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties were separate and self acquired properties of the Bullappa and with the plaintiffs have no right to challenge the alleged Will said to have been executed by Bullappa and their efforts in this regard would remain fruitless. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in the plaint, the plaintiffs have specifically assailed, disputed, challenged and denied the due execution, validity and legality of the alleged Will by averring as hereunder:

¶58

" MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

¶59

The Plaintiffs above named, most humbly submit as follows:

¶60

1. The address of the Plaintiffs for the purpose of service of Court Summons, Notices, etc. from this Hon'ble Court is as stated in the Cause title above. They may also be served thorugh their Counsel Smt. Rashmi C., Advocate, M/S, RASHMI ASSOCIATES No. 1, Prakruthi Homes Layout, Virupakshapura, Bengaluru 560097.

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

2. The address of the Defendants for the aforesaid similar purposes is as stated in the Cause Title.

¶64

3. The original propositus of the family of the plaintiffs and defendants is one Kaluraiah. Said Kalluraiah had two sons namely Guddaiah and Bullappa. Guddaiah predeceased Bullappa. Bullappa has son namely Muniyappa and the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1, herein are the children of the said Muniyappa, s/o Bullappa. The Genealogical Tree of Bullappa is annexed along with the plaint for better understanding of the relation between the parties,

¶65

4. Originally Kalluraiah owned certain properties in Doddabele Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru Urban District. The said Kalluraiah died about 65 years back. He was survived by his two sons namely Guddaiah and Bullappa Guddaiah had no male issues and Bullappa had one son, namely Muniyappa, the father of the Plaintiffs and Defendants herein. Hence all the properties belonging the Kalluraiah after his demise became the Coparcenary property at the hands of his sonsGuddaiah and Bullappa and grandson - Muniyappa.

¶66

5. All the revenue records pertaining to the coparcenary properties of propositus Kalluraiah, after his demise, stood in the name of his eldest son, Guddaiah as the Kartha of the Joint family. During the life time of Guddalah and Bullappa, the coparcenary properties of propositus Kalluraiah, was not divided between them. Guddaiah s/o Kalluraiah died more than 50

¶67

9 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

years back and since he was survived with only daughters, after his demise, Bullappa, the grandfather of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 and his son Muniyappa the father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 were the only male members in the family of Bullappa and hence the coparcenary properties of propositus Kalluraiah, including the Suit Schedule Properties, devolved upon Bullappa and Muniyappa as the only male survivors/coparceners as per Law.

¶71

6. Even during the lifetime of Bullappa, there was no division between him and his son, Muniyappa. However, Bullappa executed a Gift Deed dated: 2812-1966 in favour of the daughters of his brother Guddaiah gifting his entire share of properties. The property that remained with the family was the share of Muniyappa, the father of the Plaintiffs.

¶72

7. These properties that remained to be the properties of Muniyappa are the properties referred to as the Suit Schedule Properties in the Plaint. It is in respect of this Suit Schedule Properties the Plaintiffs are seeking for partition in the above matter.

¶73

8. After the death of Bullappa and Muniyappa (who died during 2008) till today, the ancestral joint family property has not been shared between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1. Till this day, the Plaintiffs and Defendant no.1 in joint possession and occupation of the Suit Schedule Properties.

¶74

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

9. The Plaintiffs have been seeking for partition of all the Suit Schedule Properties from defendant No.1, who has been postponing the said partition giving one or the other reason. In this regard when the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 came to. Doddabele Village, during the month of August, 2017 i.e, on 4.8.2017 for the Varamahalakshmi Pooja, they again insisted on getting their shares by metes and bounds from defendant No.1 who was acting as the Kartha of the family, being the eldest son of Muniyappa. At that point of time there was a heated argument between defendant No.1 on one side and the plaintiffs on the other side. During the course of arguments, defendant No.1 refused to give the share in the suit schedule properties and claimed them to be his absolute property and thereafter claimed that Bullappa had executed a Will on 13-11-1980 in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties, which is the ancestral joint family property belonging to the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1. He also showed the photo copy of the alleged Will. After hearing about the alleged Will, the Plaintiffs were put to great shock as Bullappa had allegedly executed a Will without the knowledge of the Plaintiffs, in respect of Suit Schedule Properties, in respect of which, he had no right, title or interest and not being the absolute owner. He had no authority to execute the Will and to give the share that was to be divided between the children of Muniyappa, since all the items of the suit

¶77

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

schedule property are ancestral joint family property belonging to the family of Plaintiffs and Defendant no.1. Defendant No.2 and 3 are in no way connected with the family of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 and they have no share in the ancestral joint family property of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1. That they have been made the parties as their names are shown in the concocted will and the RTCs

¶80

10. On perusal of the photo copy of the Will dated: 1311-1980 shown to the Plaintiffs by the defendant No. 1 allegedly executed by Bullappa, it becomes evident that the said Will is created by the Defendants in order to knock away the properties that should legitimately be divided between Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1. Possibly taking advantage of illiteracy and old age of Bullappa, the Grandfather of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have created a bogus Will and got the same registered in the office of the Sub Registrar without informing him that the alleged document is a Will.

¶81

11. The Plaintiffs have reliably learnt that the defendants are trying to alienate and encumber suit schedule properties by misusing the illegal entries in the Revenue records showing their name, thereby depleting the legitimate share that the plaintiffs are entitled to in the suit schedule properties. They are also making hectic efforts to change the nature of the properties so as to make them unidentifiable, with an intention to deprive the legitimate share of the

¶82

12 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

property that the Plaintiffs are entitled to. Hence the suit.

¶86

12. The Cause of action to the Suit arose on 4.8.2017, when the Plaintiffs approached Defendant No.1 for partition of Suit Schedule Properties being the ancestral joint family property of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 which are still not divided, when the 1^st Defendant refused to give a share to the Plaintiffs. And also when the Plaintiffs learnt about creation of a fraudulent, fabricated document alleging to be the Will executed by, Bullappa, bequeathing the properties without having any right, title and interest over the properties to the Defendants to the exclusion of the Plaintiffs. The said cause of action is continuing one and has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

¶87

13. This Hon'ble Court has both pecuniary and Territorial Jurisdiction over the subject matter and relief claimant in the Suit.

¶88

14. A separate Valuation Slip is enclosed along with the Plaint.

¶89

15. The Plaintiffs have not filed any other Suit or there is no other Suit pending upon the same cause of action in any court of law.

¶90

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

¶91

1. Pass a Judgment and Decree of partition granting 1/5th share each to the Plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and put the Plaintiffs

¶92

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

into separate possession of their 1/5^th share each in schedule property.

¶95

2. Pass a consequential Decree of Declaration declaring that the Will dated: 13-11-1980 registered on 19-12-1983 as No.79/83-84 pages 188 to 191 Volume 16 Book III in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk is not binding over the share of the Plaintiffs

¶96

3. Pass a consequential Judgment & Decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendants, their agents representatives etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession of the share that falls to each of the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule properties.

¶97

4. Pass such other necessary orders including costs of the Suit that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶98

As can be seen from the plaint averments and

¶99

documents produced along with the plaint, which alone are germane and relevant for the purpose of considering an application for rejection of the plaint, the plaintiffs have not only categorically stated that the aforesaid Bullappa did not have absolute right over

¶100

the suit schedule properties, the plaintiffs at para Nos.9 and 10 of the plaint has specifically said that the Will is a created document

¶101

14 -

¶102

NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

and that Bullappa did not have exclusive or absolute right to execute the said Will in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3. Under these circumstances, having regard to the plaint averments and documents produced along with the plaint, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose or any cause of action or that the same was barred by any law of time being in force especially when the issue / question as regards the validity, legality or correction of the Will would necessarily have to be decided only after a full fledge trial and not at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court completely misdirected itself in coming to the erroneous conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to challenge the Will without considering or appreciating relevant plaint averments, wherein the plaintiffs have taken up the specific contention that the Will is a concocted document as well as contended that Bullapppa did not have exclusive or absolute right to execute the alleged Will, which was not binding upon them. It is therefore clear that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is completely erroneous and fails to take into account that disputed questions of law and fact arise for consideration, which are

¶105

15 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

required to be addressed and adjudicated upon only after a full fledged trial and consequently, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Trial Court for disposal on merits and in accordance with law

¶109

by leaving open all contentions.

¶110

In the result, I pass the following:

¶111

ORDER

¶112

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed.

¶113

(ii) The impugned order dated 29.10.2025 in O.S.No.1239/2017 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

¶114

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

¶115

(iv) The appellants and defendant No.2 are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 12.01.2026 .

¶116

16 -

¶117

NC: 2025:KHC:50059 RFA No. 2567 of 2025

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

(v) The Trial Court shall notify the remaining defendants

¶120

and proceed further and dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with law.

¶121

(vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter, including the issue regarding the Will, are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶122

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶123

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Muniraju v. Galappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniraju v. Galappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M R Jewels Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Royal College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education (Ncte Src)

Nelannne Maheshwarappa Mohan Vs Chief Commissioner

Smt. Hemavathi Muddappa Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Buraaq Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

M/S S P Metals Vs Senior Intelligence Officer