Dismissed¶51

Sri.C. Narasimhaiah Alias Narasihappa v. Sri K P Sachidananada

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2026CRP/657/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

res judicata; constructive res judicata; rejection of plaint; Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC; Order VII Rule 11; Section 115 CPC; Civil Revision Petition; plaint averments; cause of action; Keshava Sood v. Aarti Pradeep Sood 2023 SCC Online SC 2459; sale deeds 18.05.1995 and 14.07.1995; regular first appeal; O.S.No.265/2005; O.S.No.903/1995; judgment and decree 19.08.2004; plaint cannot be rejected on res judicata plea; requires trial; contentions left open.

What did the court decide?

A plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the plea of res judicata; the trial Court rightly observed that such a plea requires trial. ¶45

Sri.C. Narasimhaiah Alias Narasihappa Vs Sri K P Sachidananada — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.265/2005 is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC on the ground that the suit is barred by law and hit by res judicata and constructive res judicata, the Sale Deeds dated 18.05.1995 and 14.07.1995 having attained finality upon confirmation in the regular first appeal. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

A plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the plea of res judicata; the trial Court rightly observed that such a plea requires trial.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The grounds raised by the petitioners (bar of res judicata / finality of the earlier decree and sale deeds) cannot be considered at the plaint-rejection stage; they require evidence, and can be decided only after evidence is adduced by both parties.

¶49

Key takeaways

In light of Keshava Sood (Apex Court), the trial Court had rightly rejected I.A.No.1/2025; this Court finds no reasons to interfere, dismisses the petition, leaves all contentions open and closes all I.As.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.) dismisses Civil Revision Petition No. 657 of 2025 filed under S.115 CPC by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.265/2005 against the order dated 01.08.2025 of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru (Rural) District, dismissing their I.A.No.1/2025 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. Held: a plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on the plea of res judicata/constructive res judicata — the contention that the Sale Deeds dated 18.05.1995 and 14.07.1995 attained finality upon confirmation in the regular first appeal, and that the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2004 in O.S.No.903/1995 bars the suit, requires trial and evidence, and can be decided only after evidence is adduced by both parties. In light of Keshava Sood v. Aarti Pradeep Sood, 2023 SCC Online SC 2459 (Apex Court), the trial Court had rightly rejected the application. All contentions left open; all I.As. closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:25779 CRP No. 657 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 657 OF 2025 (IO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.C. NARASIMHAIAH @ NARASIHAPPA S/O CHICKCHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶10

SRI C.CHANDRAPPA S/O CHICKCHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT KEMBATHAHALLI VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI GOTTIGERE POST BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE- 560 083

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. DAYALU K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI K.P.SACHIDANANADA S/O LATE K.PANCHAKSHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶16

SMT S.VASANTHA W/O K.P.SHACHIDANANDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶17

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.79/1 OUT HOUSE, BETWEEN 5^TH AND 6^TH CROSS 4^TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET BANGALORE- 560 018

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25779 CRP No. 657 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SMT.SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O NALLAYANA DODDI VILLAGE INDLAVADI POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE -562 106

¶21

SMT.CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA W/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NALLAIAHNA DODDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HINDALAVADI POST -562 106 ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶22

SMT MUNITHAYAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶23

SMT. MAMATHA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA W/O SHANKARA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶24

RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6 ARE R/AT KEMABATHAHALLI VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, GOTTIGERE POST -560 083 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

THIS CRP FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2025, PASSED ON IA NO. 1/25 IN OS NO. 265/2005, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA NO. 1/25 U/O 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION FO PLIANT.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:25779 CRP No. 657 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.1/2025 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC in O.S.No.265/2005 dated 01.08.2025 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru (R) District, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court had dismissed I.A.No.1/2025, the petitioners who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court.

¶34

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein who are the plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the 'A' schedule property, the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2004 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. In that, defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are the petitioners herein had filed I.A.No.1/2025 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Sale Deed dated 18.05.1995 and the Sale Deed dated 14.07.1995 alleged to have been executed, have attained finality upon confirmation in the regular first appeal. Hence, the suit is barred by law and hit by principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata and is liable to be rejected.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:25779 CRP No. 657 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The trial Court had considered I.A.No.1/2025 and rejected the same. While rejecting I.A.No.1/2025, the trial Court had observed that in order to adjudicate an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the trial Court has to consider only the plaint averments and the document annexed to the plaint. As per the plaint averments, the cause of action arose when the judgment and decree was passed on 19.08.2004 in O.S.No.903/1995 and when defendant No.6 approached the acquisition authority and also when the defendants made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiffs by denying the plaintiffs' title and possession. The defendants had sought to reject the plaint on the ground of res judicata . The trial Court had observed that it cannot reject the plaint on the principles of res judicata as the same requires trial. The trial Court had considered the judgment of the Apex Court in case of

¶39

Keshava Sood Vs. Aarti Pradeep Sood¹ and further observed that since the very plea of the defendants in the instant application is purely based on the aspect of res judicata , the same cannot be considered for rejection of plaint as in that

¶40

1 2023 SCC Online SC 2459

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25779 CRP No. 657 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

regard, evidence has to be read in whole and accordingly, rejected I.A.No.1/2025.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when a document was executed based on a Will and the Court had considered the said Will in the earlier proceedings and had decreed the suit, against that an appeal was filed and the appeal was also dismissed and the judgment and decree had attained finality. Learned counsel submits that the suit is barred by res judicata and the plaintiffs cannot file a suit on the same grounds which were already decided in the earlier suit. The trial Court had failed to consider all these aspects and rejected the application. It is submitted that there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file a suit and the trial Court ought to have considered the application filed by the petitioners.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the entire material on record. The plaintiff has stated about different cause of actions that has occurred to the plaintiffs and according to the defendants, the suit is barred by res judicata . The trial Court had rightly observed that the plaint cannot be rejected on the principles of res judicata and the

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:25779 CRP No. 657 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

same requires trial. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Keshava Sood 's case referred supra, the trial Court had rightly rejected the application. The grounds that are raised by the petitioners cannot be considered at this stage and it requires evidence and that can be decided only after the evidence is adduced by both the parties. In view of the same, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶52

ii. All the contentions are left open to the parties.

¶53

iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶54

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶55

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Sri.C. Narasimhaiah Alias Narasihappa v. Sri K P Sachidananada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.C. Narasimhaiah Alias Narasihappa v. Sri K P Sachidananada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Chandrakanth Vs E Subhash

Sri N. Beerappa, Since Dead by Lrs Puttamallamma Vs Chikkanna

M/S Vihan Health Care Vs M/S Vetogen Animal Health LLP

Sri G M Raveendra Vs Sri Gangarangaiah

Gayathri a B Vs a v Bharathi

Smt.Gangamma, Vs Sri. Lakshmaiah