Smt T C Yashodhamma v. Sri C R Krishna Reddy

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2026RFA/1878/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

rejection of plaint; Order VII Rule 11 CPC; plaint averments alone; cause of action; partition suit; unregistered partition deed dated 23.07.1989; Will of Papamma; sale deed during pendency dated 17.04.2023; framing of issues; advanced stage; Section 96 CPC appeal; Karnataka High Court; Anekal; OS No.146/2009; RFA 1878/2024; Eldeco Housing v. Ashok Vidyarthi; Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma; Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation; suit restored; interlocutory applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; order dated 04.07.2024 in OS No.146/2009 set aside; suit to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law without undue delay; all pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶127

Smt T C Yashodhamma Vs Sri C R Krishna Reddy — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶127

Issue for consideration

Whether the Order of the trial Court rejecting the plaint requires interference in appeal. +2 more

¶106

Court's answer

There was no occasion for the trial Court to exercise the extreme measure of rejection of the plaint at an advanced stage of the suit, that too on the basis of the pleadings and materials placed on record by the defendants; the appeal requires to be allowed.

¶123

Ratio / Principle

An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has to be considered on the basis of the averments in the plaint; if the plaint averments, taken as a whole, do not reveal a cause of action, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

¶107

Key takeaways

The alleged partition of 23.07.1989 was not by a registered deed of partition and was executed by defendants No.1 and 2.ratio¶110
The plaint was rejected exclusively on the basis of the materials placed on record by the defendants, at a stage when the suit had already proceeded to the framing of issues.ratio¶116
Whether the execution of the Will stood admitted by the recitals in the Sale Deed and whether the prior partition set up would defeat the claims of the plaintiff are questions of fact and law which require to be considered in the suit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, RFA No.1878/2024 (PAR), decided 17.02.2026 (Anu Sivaraman J., author; Vijaykumar A. Patil J.). Regular First Appeal under S.96 CPC against rejection of the plaint in partition suit OS No.146/2009 (Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal) under Order VII Rule 11(a),(c),(d) r/w S.151 CPC on I.A.No.XIV by defendants No.2 and 9 to 14, founded on an alleged unregistered Partition Deed dated 23.07.1989, the mother's Will, and the plaintiff's own Sale Deed dated 17.04.2023. Held: an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be considered only on the averments of the plaint; the suit having progressed to the stage of framing of issues, and the rejection resting exclusively on the defendants' pleadings and documents, the invocation of Order VII Rule 11 was completely unwarranted; whether the Sale Deed admitted the Will and whether the prior partition defeats the plaintiff's claim are questions of fact and law for trial. Appeal allowed; order dated 04.07.2024 set aside; suit to be disposed of in accordance with law without undue delay; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1878 OF 2024 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. T. C. YASHODHAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKA RAMAIAH, ALIAS CHIKKA RAMAREDDY, W/O P. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT 7/9, 5TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA NEW EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 060. REPRESENTED BY POA HOLDER, P. KRISHNAREDDY, S/O LATE PAPAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT 7/9, 5TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA NEW EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 060.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. D.S.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SRI. C. R. KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE CHIKKA RAMAIAH, ALIAS CHIKKA RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT THIGALACHOWDENAHALLI, SARJAPURA HOBLI,

¶13

¶14

ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 087.

¶15

2 . SRI. GOPALA REDDY S/O LATE CHIKKA RAMAIAH, ALIAS CHIKKA RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT THIGALACHOWDENAHALLI, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 087.

¶16

3 . SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKA RAMAIAH, D. CHIKKA RAMAREDDY, W/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.125, 6TH MAIN, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION, BANGALORE-30.

¶17

4 . SMT. AKKAYAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKA RAMAIAH, ALIAS CHIKKA RAMAREDDY, W/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT ALIBOMMASANDRA, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 107.

¶18

5 . SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKA RAMAIAH ALIAS CHIKKA RAMAREDDY, W/O EASWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.165, 4TH BLOCK, 16TH MAIN, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 045.

¶19

6 . SMT. KRISHNAVENI D/O LATE CHIKKA RAMAIAH ALIAS CHIKKA RAMAREDDY, W/O THIMMARAYA REDDY,

¶20

¶21

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT HANDENAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 125.

¶22

7 . SRI. K. VIVEKANANDA S/O C. R. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶23

R/AT THIGALA CHOWDANADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 087.

¶24

8 . SRI. K. SHASHENDRA KUMAR S/O C. R. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶25

R/AT THIGALA CHOWDANADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 087.

¶26

9 . SMT. PRABHAVATHI W/O SRI. C. GOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶27

10 . SRI. G. SHREEDHARA S/O SRI C. GOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶28

11 . KUM. CHERISHMA S. REDDY D/O SRI. G.SHREEDHARA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN HER FATHER

¶29

12 . SRI. G. BHUVANESH S/O SRI. C. GOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶30

RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 12 ARE

¶31

R/AT THIGALACHOWDANADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI,

¶32

¶33

ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 087.

¶34

13 . SRI. RAJAPPA REDDY S/O RAMAPRASAD REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.31/4, SOMSANDRA PALYA, HSR LAYOUT POST, BENGALURU-560 102.

¶35

14 . SRI. P. SRIDHAR S/O RAMAPRASAD REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, 1/4, SOMASANDRA POST, HSR LAYOUT POST, BENGALURU-560 102.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. DHANANJAY VIDYAPATI JOSHI, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. SRIKANTH S., ADV. FOR C/R2, R9, R10 & R12; SRI. A. MADHUSUDANA RAO, ADV., FOR C/R1; SRI. M.N.UMESH, ADV. FOR R7 & R8; R3 TO R6, R13 & R14 ARE SERVED; R11 IS MINOR REP. BY R10)

¶38

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.XIV IN OS NO.146/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, ALLOWING THE IA NO.XIV FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a), (c) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶39

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 09.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶42

CAV JUDGMENT

¶43

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶44

This Regular First Appeal is filed challenging the Order

¶45

dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Anekal ('trial Court' for short) in Original Suit No.146/2009, wherein the application filed by defendants No.2 and 9 to 14 was allowed and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (c) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶46

We have heard Shri. D. S. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri. Dhananjay Vidyapati Joshi, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Srikanth. S, learned advocate appearing for

¶47

caveator/respondents No.2, 9, 10 and 12 and Shri. A. Madhusudana Rao, learned counsel appearing for

¶48

caveator/respondent No.1.

¶49

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶50

referred to as per the rankings before the trial Court.

¶51

¶52

The suit was filed seeking partition and separate allotment of plaintiff's 1/7^th share in respect of suit schedule 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' properties and to declare the Sale Deed dated 30.09.2015 executed by defendant No.2, his wife and sons in favour of Shri. Rajappa Reddy and Shri. P. Sridhar in the portion of the suit schedule 'B' property, that is, in Sy.No.44, is not binding on the plaintiff.

¶53

The plaint averments, in brief are as follows:The plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 are the children of Late Shri. Chikka Ramaiah and Smt. Papamma (daughter of Erappa). Chikka Ramaiah died on 21.08.1994 and Papamma also died on 16.08.2008. Under a registered Gift Deed dated 01.03.1976, the sons of Erappa jointly gifted the suit schedule 'A' property in favour of Papamma and her sons, defendants No.1 and 2. Papamma held undivided 1/3^rd share in the property.

¶54

During his lifetime, Chikka Ramaiah acquired suit schedule 'B' properties - Sy.No.33/3 measuring 24 guntas situated at Gottamaranahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk by registered Sale Deed dated 01.07.1976 and also

¶55

¶56

Sy.No.44 measuring 2 acres 18.5 guntas through partition in the year 1976. After demise of both parents, the plaintiff and defendants remained in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, with no partition effected by metes and bounds. Suit schedule 'C' property was purchased by defendant No.1 on 17.10.2007 out of family funds. The joint family also owned movable properties described as suit schedule 'D' property, presently in the custody of defendant No.1. The plaintiff has subsisting right, title, interest and possession in suit schedule 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' properties along with the defendants, all holding equal undivided shares.

¶57

After death of Papamma, defendant No.1 in collusion with other defendants began acting detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff and misusing the joint family funds. Defendant No.2 has illegally alienated portions of suit schedule 'B' property without consent of co-owners and without authority. On these pleadings, the suit was laid.

¶58

¶59

Defendant No.1 filed written statement

¶60

contending that a partition had already taken place in respect of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties under a Partition Deed dated 23.07.1989, executed by the parents of defendants No.1 and 2 along with defendants No.1 and 2. Under the said partition, certain properties were allotted to the share of the mother of plaintiff, in which only the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 6 are entitled to shares. The plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the remaining properties. During her lifetime, Papamma executed a registered Will dated 21.10.1994 bequeathing the properties allotted to her share in favour of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 6. By virtue of the Partition Deed dated 23.07.1989, the plaintiff and defendants have separated. It was further contended that after the said separation, defendant No.1 acquired suit schedule 'C' property under registered Sale Deed in the year 2007 and the said property is the selfacquired property of defendant No.1.

¶61

Defendants No.2 and 9 to 14 filed I.A.No.XIV under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and (d) read with Section

¶62

¶63

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has no manner or right, title and interest over the suit schedule properties. It is submitted that a partition was already effected under a Partition Deed dated 23.07.1989. In the said Partition Deed, land bearing Sy.No.119/1 measuring 1 acre 17 guntas situated at Chambenahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, was allotted to the share of the mother of the plaintiff. During her lifetime, the mother of the plaintiff, executed a Will dated 21.10.2004, wherein she categorically stated that her daughters were entitled to equal shares in the said property. The existence of the partition and the Will was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff and her sisters alienated the said property in favour of M.C. Builders under registered Sale Deed dated 17.04.2023. The Sale Deed makes reference to a Will dated 28.09.1994, which in turn refers to the Partition Deed dated 23.07.1989. In view of the Partition, execution of Will and subsequent alienation by the plaintiff herself, the defendants contended that no cause of action survives for filing the suit

¶64

¶65

for partition and separate possession and prayed for rejection of plaint.

¶66

The plaintiff's counsel filed objections to the IA, contending that the plaintiff has alienated only a portion of Item No.4 of suit schedule 'A' property, which she acquired from her mother under a registered Will dated 28.09.1994. It is further contended that no partition has taken place in respect of the remaining suit schedule properties between the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6.

¶67

After considering the contentions and hearing the arguments, the trial Court observed that the plaintiff had admitted in the statement of objections filed to I.A.No.XIV that she, along with defendants No.3 to 6, had executed a Sale Deed in respect of a portion of suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. Thus, the execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 17.04.2023 stood admitted. The said Sale Deed contains a recital referring to a prior Will dated 23.07.1989. From the said admission, the trial Court concluded that a partition of the joint family properties had already taken place, under which suit schedule 'A' and 'B'

¶68

¶69

properties were divided between the mother of plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2. Suit schedule 'C' property was purchased by defendant No.1 in the year 2007, long after partition in the year 1989. In the absence of any material to show the existence of a joint family or purchase from joint family funds at the time of acquisition, the plaintiff was held to have no right or claim over suit schedule 'C' property.

¶70

The trial Court further held that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had dishonestly alienated a portion of suit schedule property without the permission of the trial Court, under the Sale Deed dated 17.04.2023. The trial Court held that there was no subsisting cause of action, as all the suit schedule properties had already been subjected to partition, which the plaintiff herself admitted. The question of partial rejection of the plaint did not arise. Consequently, the plaint was rejected in its entirety.

¶71

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that Chikka Ramaiah and Pappamma had two sons and five daughters. During the lifetime of Papamma, the

¶72

¶73

properties mentioned in suit schedule 'A', were acquired under a Gift Deed dated 01.03.1976, which were partitioned by her with her brothers on 23.07.1989. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, respondent No.2 alienated one of the suit schedule properties in the year 2015 in favour of respondents No.13 and 14. Further, respondent No.2 induced the appellant to sell Item No.IV of suit schedule 'A' property, as the said property stood in the appellant's name. Accordingly, Item No.4 of suit schedule 'A' was sold in favor of M/s. M.C. Builders. The property so alienated is not the joint family or ancestral property, but obtained from the parents of Late Papamma under Gift Deed dated 01.03.1976.

¶74

It is contended that respondent No.2, having himself alienated joint family property, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (c) and (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, to conceal his own illegal acts and that the said application is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the suit is one for partition and separate possession of ancestral property of the parents of

¶75

¶76

the appellant as shown in the suit schedule 'B', and properties acquired out of joint family nucleus as shown in suit schedule 'C'. The trial Court, without considering these aspects, allowed the Interlocutory Application and rejected the plaint, which is illegal and unsustainable.

¶77

It is further submitted that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is required to consider only the averments made in the plaint. The written statement and documents produced by the respondents cannot be relied upon, as consistently held by the Apex Court. The trial Court, however, erroneously relied upon the written statement and documents filed by the respondents in complete disregard of settled law. It is further contended that the trial Court failed to afford sufficient opportunity to the appellant to meet the contentions raised in the application. The respondents had filed a memo along with certain documents, including the alleged Partition Deed dated 23.07.1989, which was not served upon the appellant.

¶78

¶79

Consequently, the appellant was denied an opportunity to contest the said documents.

¶80

It is contended that the Partition Deed dated 23.07.1989 is an unregistered document, does not record any prior oral partition, and is legally inadmissible. It is further contended that neither the appellant nor her mother, Late Papamma, were parties to the said document, and the left thumb impression appearing therein does not belong to Papamma and that it is fabricated. Relying upon Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended and applicable at the time of filing of the suit, it is contended that only a partition effected by a registered Partition Deed can be recognized for the purpose of excluding properties or determining shares. The alleged Partition Deed was produced belatedly on 24.06.2024, shortly before passing of the impugned order, and could not have been relied upon by the trial Court.

¶81

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on the following decisions:-

¶82

¶83

Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited v. Ashok Vidyarthi and others reported in 2023 SCC online SC 1612, wherein, it was held at paragraph No.8 as under:-

¶84

"8. x x x x x It is settled position of law

¶85

that no material except the plaint or the documents annexed with the plaint could be considered at the stage of consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11CPC. None of the documents including the earlier suit for injunction or any communication or agreement was on record, hence the High Court had committed error in allowing the review application and consequently the application under Order VII Rule 11(d)CPC, rejecting the plaint. x x x x x "

¶86

Geetha D/o Late Krishna and Ors. v. Nanjundaswamy & Ors reported in 2023 SCC online SC 1407;

¶87

G.Nagaraj and Another v. B.P.Mruthunjayanna and Ors., by reported in 2023 SCC online SC 1270;

¶88

Shaukathussain Mohammed Patel v. Khatunben Mohmmedbhai Polara reported in (2019) 10 SCC 226;

¶89

Alpana Gupta v. APG Towers Pvt. Ltd reported in (2019) 15 SCC 46;

¶90

Pawan Kumar v. Babulal by LRs reported in (2019) 4 SCC 367;

¶91

Urvashiben & Another v. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 372;

¶92

¶93

Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors reported in (2020) 6 SCC 557;

¶94

Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors reported in AIR 2021 SC 3802;

¶95

Kamala & Ors. v. K.T.Eshwara Sa & Ors reported in (2008) 12 SCC 661 ;

¶96

Kale & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors reported in AIR 1976 SC 807;

¶97

K.G.Shivalingappa (D) by LRs & ors. v. G.S.Eswarappa & Ors reported in 2004 AIR SCW 4435;

¶98

Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad & Ors reported in AIR 2018 SC 3152;

¶99

Vidya Devli Alias Vidya Vati (Dead by LR's) v. Prem Prakash & Ors reported in AIR 1995 SC 1789;

¶100

Gopalaiah & Ors. v. Smt. Jayakumari & Ors reported in 2013 SCC online Kar 10159, and

¶101

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 .

¶102

The learned senior counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.2, respondents No.9, 10 and 12, on the other hand, contends that a suit can be filed only in case there is a cause of action available to the plaintiff. It is

¶103

¶104

contended that the plaint was filed concealing the relevant facts and without disclosing the fact that a partition had been effected with regard to suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and that a Will had been executed by Papamma, by which the properties had been bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff as well. It is further submitted that the said Will had been acted upon by the plaintiff and the Sale Deed was registered on 17.04.2023. It is submitted that the recital of the said Sale Deed would show that the plaintiff had claimed on the basis of the Will executed by their mother, Papamma. Further, it is contended that the recitals of the Will would show that the earlier partition has been specifically referred to in the Will. It is therefore contended that the plaint was only the result of clever drafting and that there was no cause of action available to the appellant/plaintiff to file the suit since suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties admittedly stood partitioned and there was therefore no joint family property for the income of such property to be available for purchase of suit schedule 'C' property.

¶105

¶106

The issue which arises for consideration before us is whether the Order of the trial Court requires interference in appeal. The issue is answered in the positive for the following reasons.

¶107

The plaint averments are specifically that suit schedule 'A' property is gifted by the brothers of Papamma, who is the mother of plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 6 in favour of Papamma and defendants No.1 and 2. Therefore, Papamma had undivided 1/3^rd share in the said property. Further, suit schedule 'B' properties are acquired by the father in his name. It is further contended that suit schedule 'C' property were purchased by defendant No.1 out of the family funds. It is trite law that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure has to be considered on the basis of the averments in the plaint. If the plaint averments, taken as a whole, do not reveal a cause of action for filing the suit, the plaint itself is liable to be rejected.

¶108

In the instant case, defendant No.1 filed written statement alleging that a partition had been effected in

¶109

¶110

respect of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties on 23.07.1989. However, it is worth noticing that the alleged partition was not by a registered deed of partition. Moreover, it was executed by defendants No.1 and 2. In the said partition deed also, certain properties were set apart to the share of Papamma. It appears that the Will of Papamma dated 21.10.1994 is also a document which was produced by the defendants along with their written statement or as exhibits to the Interlocutory Application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶111

The main contention of the defendants in the suit

¶112

is that the plaintiff herself had sold a portion of suit schedule 'A' property by a Sale Deed dated 17.04.2023. In the said Sale Deed, a specific reference is made to the Will of the mother dated 21.10.1994. It is therefore contended that the plaintiff herself had relied on the Will of the mother, which refers to the prior partition executed in the year 1989.

¶113

The trial Court had considered the contentions and had found that the plaintiff had alienated a part of the suit schedule properties while the suit was pending

¶114

¶115

consideration. It was found that the Sale Deed executed by the plaintiff refers to the Will dated 21.10.1994. Taking those factors into consideration, it was found that the suit was a collusive exercise and was only a result of clever drafting. The plaint was therefore rejected in toto.

¶116

On a consideration of the materials placed on record, we notice that it was exclusively referring to the materials placed on record by the defendants that the plaint stands rejected. Further, we also notice that the suit has proceeded to the stage of framing of issues and it was only at this stage that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure had been filed by defendants No.2 and 9 to 14. The question whether the execution of the Will stood admitted by the recitals in the Sale Deed dated 20.07.2023 and whether the prior partition set up would defeat the claims of the plaintiff are questions of fact and law which requires to be considered in the suit. We fail to see why the trial Court should not have proceeded with the suit and rendered findings on the merits of the matter rather than rejecting the suit at the stage where the issues were to

¶117

¶118

be framed and the matter considered on merits. We also find that the trial Court has not considered the nature of the Partition Deed dated 23.07.1989. The plaintiff has raised a specific contention that the partition is not by a registered document and that the revenue entries have not been mutated on the basis of the partition. The trial Court has found that in the Sale Deed dated 17.04.2023, the plaintiff has referred to the Will dated 28.09.1994 executed by Papamma. The trial Court has perused the Will and found that the mother of the plaintiff has stated that there was a partition between herself and her sons under the Partition Deed dated 23.07.1989.

¶119

It is pertinent to note that both the documents, that is, the Sale Deed as well as the Will are the documents produced by the defendants along with their written statement or the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is not evident from the Order, whether the nature and effect of the partition has been considered by the trial Court. Indeed, whether the Will

¶120

¶121

stands admitted or is required to be proved is also another aspect of the matter.

¶122

Having considered the contentions advanced and in the nature of the adjudication as required for allowing an application for rejecting the plaint, we are clear in our mind that in the instant case, the invocation of the power under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure was completely unwarranted. The materials are before the Court and the admissions, for all they are worth, have also been made. The parties placed their pleadings on record and the suit has progressed to the stage of framing of issues.

¶123

In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there was no occasion for the trial Court to exercise the extreme measure of rejection of the plaint at an advanced stage in the proceedings in the suit, that too, on the basis of the pleadings and the materials placed on record by the defendants. We are of the opinion that the present appeal requires to be allowed.

¶124

¶125