Smt. Parvathi Vs Sri. Rajanna

SMT. PARVATHI WIFE OF LATE SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT MMA KAVAL VILLAGE, CHELURU HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PIN CODE-572 117

¶11

SRI. MANJUNATH S.P. SON OF LATE SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT MMA KAVAL VILLAGE, CHELURU HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PIN CODE-572 117

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. RANJEETHA SON OF LATE SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT MMA KAVAL VILLAGE, CHELURU HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 117

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI.R.RAJANNA SON OF LATE RAMASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28378 CRP No. 922 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

RESIDING AT BYLAKONENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKSHMIPURA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,

¶21

PIN CODE-562 162

¶22

SMT.JAYAMMA WIFE OF MUNICHOWDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT BYLAKONENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKSHMIPURA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, PIN CODE-562 162

¶23

SRI. RAMU, SON OF MUNICHOWDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT BYLAKONENAHALLI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, LAKSHMIPURA POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, PIN CODE-562 162

¶24

SRI. PRAKASHA, SON OF MUNICHOWDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT BYLAKONENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKSHMIPURA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, PIN CODE-562 162

¶25

SRI. HANUMANTHARAJU, SON OF MUNICHOWDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT BYLAKONENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKSHMIPURA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, PIN CODE-562 162

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3.11.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN OS

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28378 CRP No. 922 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NO.230/2016 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, DISMISSING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.III dated 03.11.2025 in O.S.NO.230/2016 by I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, the defendants are before this Court.

¶35

The respondents herein who are the plaintiffs in the suit filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming ownership of Sy.No.30/3(9 guntas) based on the sale deed dated 10.07.1948 and also sought injunction against the defendants. Defendants filed their written statement and filed I.A.No.III under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC to reject the plaint. That came to be dismissed by the order impugned.

¶36

In the affidavit that is filed in support of the I.A, it

¶37

is stated that the plaintiffs filed the suit basing on false and

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28378 CRP No. 922 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

misleading grounds and also have fabricated a document in respect of the suit schedule property. It is stated that the plaintiffs have created false cause of action based on created documents and are attempting to interfere with the lawful rights in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit filed by the plaintiffs against the LRs. does not make out cause of action and is liable to be rejected. It is stated that the plaintiffs have filed a false appeal before the Assistant Commissioner based on the fabricated documents and they have obtained an order in their favour. It is also stated that one of the properties mentioned by the defendants is based on the sale deed dated 10.07.1948. But suit property is purchased by the grandfather of the LRs of defendants and the RTC entries reflected the name of the grandfather. It is stated that plaintiffs are strangers to the suit schedule property and they do not have any right or title or interest over the suit property, based on the order of the Assistant Commissioner and also having created false documents, they are seeking declaration in the present suit without having any cause of action.

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28378 CRP No. 922 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The trial Court, by order impugned had rejected the IA. While rejecting the IA, the Court had considered various judgments of the Apex Court in Saleem Bai Vs State of Maharastra¹ and also Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs Syed Jalal² and has observed that Order VII Rule 11(a) to (f) empowers the Court reject the plaint. Basing on the statements made in the plaint and the documents that were filed along with the plaint, it is observed that the scope of the provision is limited to examining whether, on a meaningful reading of the entire plaint, without any reference to the defence, the suit is exfacie barred, unless the bar of law is apparent on the face of the plaint, the power under Order VII Rule 11 cannot be invoked. The Court has observed that the plaintiff has filed a suit stating the cause of action and according to the defendants there is no cause of action. The Court cannot consider the plaint at this stage and when the plaint shows a cause of action, the Court cannot consider the averments of the affidavit of the written statement filed by the defendant to come to the conclusion that there is no cause of action and accordingly the

¶44

1 (2003) 1 SCC 557

¶45

2 2017 (13) SCC 178

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:28378 CRP No. 922 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Court felt that the application cannot be considered and rejected the same.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶51

petitioners/defendants submits that by way of detailed objections, the petitioner has raised several grounds with regard to the cause of action, and other grounds. Those aspects were not considered by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nikhila Divyang Mehta and another Vs. Hitesh P.

¶52

Sanghvi and others³ . He relied on paragraph Nos.28 and 29 which reads as follows:

¶53

“28. The other contention that the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November, 2014, but that was not a complete knowledge as probably he could read the same subsequently. In dealing with the submission, the appellate Court distinguished between “having knowledge” and “full knowledge” to hold that the suit is not barred by limitation as the limitation would reckon from the date of full knowledge. It is a complete fallacy to make any distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge”. First of all, the limitation has to run from the date when the cause of action first accrued and not any subsequent date for the cause of action. According to the plaintiff himself, the cause of

¶54

3 2025 SCC Online SC 779

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:28378 CRP No. 922 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

action for the suit had arisen much earlier. Secondly, the plaintiff has not pleaded any date on which he acquired complete knowledge and that such argument is only an afterthought and appears to be a simple creation of the first appellate Court.

¶59

29. Lastly, the first appellate Court has ruled that in the suit, the plaintiff has claimed different reliefs and even if the plaint is barred by limitation in respect of one of the reliefs, it cannot be rejected in toto. The aforesaid submission is also without substance as upon the plain reading of the prayers made in the plaint, it is apparent that the primary relief claimed therein is to declare the Will and the Codicil to be null and void and also all subsequent proceedings thereto. In addition to it, the plaintiff has claimed permanent injunction. The other reliefs are dependent upon the first relief and cannot be granted until and unless the plaintiff succeeds in the first relief. Therefore, once the plaint or the suit in respect of the main relief stands barred by time, the other ancillary relief claimed therein also falls down.”

¶60

Learned counsel relying on this judgment submits that, without going into the merits of the matter, and only looking at the plaint and the documents filed along with it, the trial Court can consider the application that is filed by the petitioners and the Court ought to have allowed the IA filed for rejection of the plaint.

¶61

Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

¶62

perused the material on record. The suit is filed for declaration,

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28378 CRP No. 922 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

and in the plaint they have stated about what is the cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit. Several contentions are raised in the affidavit that is filed along with the I.A. It is settled legal position that for considering an application filed for rejection of plaint, only the averments of the plaint and documents that are filed in support of the same. On entirely and meaningfully reading the plaint, if the suit falls on any of the provisions under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (f) of the CPC, the Court will consider the same and reject the plaint. In this case, the plaintiff has clearly stated what the cause of action is that arose to the plaintiffs and according to the defendants, basing on certain other factors, which they have stated, there is no cause of action. The Court has rightly considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and has rightly held that the Court is bound to confine its inquiry to the averments in the plaint and basing on assertion of the defendants, the plaint cannot be rejected. In the light of the categorical stand taken by the plaintiffs with regard to the cause of action, the Court has rightly rejected the I.A that is filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC and this Court do not find any

¶66