[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Muniraju vs Galappa on 2 December, 2025

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:50059
                                                          RFA No. 2567 of 2025


                    HC-KAR



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

                                              BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                             REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2567 OF 2025 (PAR)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   MUNIRAJU
                        SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA
                        NOW AGED 47 YEARS
                        RESIDENT OF DODDABELE VILLAGE
                        KENGERI HOBLI
                        BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
                        BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT

                   2.   SMT.CHENAMMA
                        D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
                        NOW AGED 54 YEARS
                        RESIDENT OF KCHOODAHALLI VILLAGE
                        UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
                        BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
Digitally signed
by                      BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: High     3.   SMT. VEERAMMA
Court of
Karnataka               D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
                        NOW AGED 43 YEARS
                        RESIDENT OF KCHOODAHALLI VILLAGE
                        UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
                        BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
                        BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
                                                                  ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI. X.M. JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:50059
                                     RFA No. 2567 of 2025


 HC-KAR



AND:

1.   GALAPPA
     SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA
     NOW AGED 51 YEARS
     RESIDENT OF DODDABELE VILLAGE
     KENGERI HOBLI
     BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
     BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT

2.   RAJANNA
     SON OF LATE NARASIMHAIAH
     NOW AGED 56 YEARS
     RESIDENT OF DODDABELE VILLAGE
     KENGERI HOBLI
     BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
     BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT

3.   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

4.   SMT. LATHA
     D/O LATE THIPPANNA
     W/O VENKATESH
     NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     RESIDING IN GULAKAMALE,
     TARALU POST,
     UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
     BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
                              -3-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:50059
                                      RFA No. 2567 of 2025


 HC-KAR



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

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

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


      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.
                                -4-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC:50059
                                           RFA No. 2567 of 2025


HC-KAR



      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

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


                       ORAL JUDGMENT

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.

2. 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.

NC: 2025:KHC:50059

HC-KAR

3. 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.

4. 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

NC: 2025:KHC:50059

HC-KAR

possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs, they

filed the instant suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

5. 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.

6. 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.

NC: 2025:KHC:50059

HC-KAR

7. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial

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:

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

The Plaintiffs above named, most humbly submit as follows:

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.

NC: 2025:KHC:50059

HC-KAR

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

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,

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 sons- Guddaiah and Bullappa and grandson - Muniyappa.

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

NC: 2025:KHC:50059

HC-KAR

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.

6. Even during the lifetime of Bullappa, there was no division between him and his son, Muniyappa. However, Bullappa executed a Gift Deed dated: 28- 12-1966 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.

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.

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.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50059

HC-KAR

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

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50059

HC-KAR

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

10. On perusal of the photo copy of the Will dated: 13- 11-1980 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.

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

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50059

HC-KAR

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

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 1st 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.

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

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

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.

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

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

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50059

HC-KAR

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

2. Pass a consequential Decree of Declaration declaring that the Will dated: 13-11-1980 registered

Volume 16 Book III in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk is not binding over the share of the Plaintiffs

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.

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."

8. As can be seen from the plaint averments and

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

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

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50059

HC-KAR

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

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50059

HC-KAR

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

by leaving open all contentions.

9. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed.

(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.