Karnataka High Court

Smt Nalina Bai vs Sri Vishwanath Singh on 3 July, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                               -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:23786
                                                      CRP No. 397 of 2024


                 HC-KAR



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                      CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 397 OF 2024 (IO-)
                 BETWEEN:

                 1.    SMT. NALINA BAI
                       D/O LATE SHARADA BAI
                       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

                 2.    SMT. MANJULA BAI
                       D/O LATE SHARADA BAI
                       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

                       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
                       RAILWAY STATION ROAD
                       SHAMANNA BLOCK
                       CHINTAMANI - 563 125.
                                                           ...PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by        (BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
NAGAVENI
Location: High   AND:
Court of
Karnataka
                 1.    SRI VISHWANATH SINGH
                       S/O LATE BAPU SINGH
                       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

                 2.    SMT. SHOBHA BAI
                       D/O LATE BAPU SINGH
                       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

                 3.    SRI SURAJBAN SINGH
                            -2-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC:23786
                                   CRP No. 397 of 2024


HC-KAR



     S/O LATE BAPU SINGH
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

4.   SRI SUNDAR SINGH
     S/O LATE BAPU SINGH
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

5.   SMT. PUSHPA BAI
     D/O LATE BAPU SINGH
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

6.   SRI LOKANATH SINGH
     S/O LATE BAPU SINGH
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

7.   SMT. KUMARI BAI
     W/O LATE BAPU SINGH
     D/O LATE KRISHNA SINGH
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
     R/AT CHOKKANDAHALLI VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI, MALURU TALUK
     KOLAR DISTRICT.

8.   SMT. MANJULA BAI
     D/O LATE KRISHNA SINGH
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

9.   SMT. SRI BAI
     D/O LATE KRISHNA SINGH
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

10. SMT. SARASWATHI BAI
    D/O LATE KRISHNA SINGH
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                            -3-
                                  NC: 2025:KHC:23786
                                 CRP No. 397 of 2024


HC-KAR




11. SRI GANESH SINGH
    S/O LATE KRISHNA SINGH
    AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

12. SMT. SUBBALAKSHMI BAI
    D/O LATE KRISHNA SINGH
    AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

13. SMT. VEENA BAI
    D/O LATE KRISHNA SINGH
    AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

14. SMT. BHUVANESHWARI BAI
    D/O LATE KAMALA BAI
    AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

15. SRI RAMACHANDAR SINGH
    S/O LATE KALAMALA BAI
    AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

16. SMT. LAKSHMI BAI
    W/O UDAYBAN SINGH
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

17. SRI PURNA SINGH
    S/O LATE AMRUTHA BAI
    AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

18. SMT. KUMARI BAI
    D/O LATE AMRUTHA BAI
    AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

19. SMT. PARVATHI BAI
    D/O LATE AMRUTHA BAI
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                            -4-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:23786
                                    CRP No. 397 of 2024


HC-KAR




20. SRI VITTAL SINGH
    S/O LATE AMRUTHA BAI
    AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

21. SMT. SARASWATHI BAI
    D/O LATE AMRUTHA BAI
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

    RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 AND
    8 TO 21 ARE R/AT BAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI, MALURU TALUK
    KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.

22. SMT. SHAMALA BAI
    D/O LATE RAJESHWARI BAI
    AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

23. SMT. SUJATHA BAI
    D/O LATE RAJESHWARI BAI
    AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

24. SMT. SHASHIKALA BAI
    D/O LATE RAJESHWARI BAI
    AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

25. SMT. LIKITHA BAI
    D/O LATE RAJESHWARI BAI
    AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

26. SMT. ESHWARI BAI
    D/O LATE KUMAR SINGH R.,
    AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
                            -5-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:23786
                                    CRP No. 397 of 2024


HC-KAR




27. SMT. SHOBA BAI
    D/O LATE KUMAR SINGH R.,
    AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

28. SMT. RADHIKA BAI
    D/O LATE KUMAR SINGH R.,
    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

29. SMT. MANJULA BAI
    D/O LATE KUMAR SINGH R.,
    AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

30. SMT. ANU BAI
    D/O LATE KUMAR SINGH R.,
    AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

31. SMT. KAVITHA BAI
    D/O LATE KUMAR SINGH R.,
    AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

32. SRI KUBER SINGH
    ALIS SUNDER SINGH
    S/O LATE SHARADA BAI
    AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

33. SRI LAKSHMAN SINGH
    S/O LATE SHARADA BAI
    AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

    RESPONDENTS NO.22 TO 33 ARE
    R/AT 1ST CROSS, PRASHANTH NAGAR
    BEHIND HMS PETORL BUNK
    PRASHANTH NAGAR
    KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101.
                          -6-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:23786
                                    CRP No. 397 of 2024


HC-KAR




34. SRI MAHENDRA SINGH
    S/O LATE SHANTHA BAI
    AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
    R/AT NO.120, "SIDDARTHA
    LAYOUT", R.C.NAGAR POST
    KAVALBYRADANDRA
    BENGALURU - 560 032.

35. SRI THULASIRAM SINGH
    S/O LATE BALAJI SINGH
    AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
    R/AT BAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TLAUK
    PINCODE: 563 101.

36. SMT. ANANDA BAI
    D/O LATE BALAJI SINGH
    AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
    R/AT BAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TLAUK
    KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

37. K.I.A.D.B., OFFICE OF THE LAND ACQUISTION
    OFFICE-I, NO.39, "SHANTHI GRUHA"
    "BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUDIES BUILDING"
    4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

38. SMT. UMA
    D/O LATE SHANTHA BAI
    AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
    R/AT NO.2ND CROSS
    "ROY SINGH LAYOUT"
    SULIBELE ROAD, HOSAKOTE
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
                           -7-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:23786
                                    CRP No. 397 of 2024


HC-KAR




39. SRI RAVINDRA SINGH
    S/O LATE SHANTHA BAI
    AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
    R/AT NO.120, "SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT"
    R.C.NAGAR POST, KAVALBYRASANDRA
    BENGALURU - 560 032.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS


(BY SRI A.NAGARAJA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 AND
         R35;
     SRI S.P.KULKARNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
     SRI VASANTHKUMAR K. M., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
     SRI CHANNAKESHAVA D. R., ADVOCATE FOR R6;
     SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R37;
          NOTICE TO R38 AND R39 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE
          ORDER DATED 29.10.2024
          R7, R15, R16, R32 AND R34 SERVED AND
          UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.03.2024
PASSED IN O.S.NO.675/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MALUR MADE
ON IA NO.3 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 7, 24 AND 38
UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) READ WITH SECTION
151 OF THE CPC.,

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                  -8-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC:23786
                                             CRP No. 397 of 2024


 HC-KAR




CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                           ORAL ORDER

Petitioners-plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.675/2022 are

at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated

30.03.2024 by which the concerned Court answers the

application in I.A.No.3 filed by defendant Nos.1 to 7, 24 and 38

seeking rejection of the plaint partially.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

application itself was filed for rejection of the plaint partially

and not the entire plaint. Since the issue stands covered by

plethora of judgments of the Apex Court that a plaint cannot be

rejected partially, the petition on this short ground deserves to

succeed.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.P.Kulkarni, appearing

for the respondent No.3 would submit that he be reserved

liberty to file an appropriate application before the concerned

Court.

NC: 2025:KHC:23786

HC-KAR

4. The Apex Court in VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS

LTD. v. MAHAVEER LUNIA & ORS., reported in 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 1208, at paragraphs 8, 9.5, 9.6 and 9.7, has held as

follows:

"8. The position of law is that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is permissible only when the plaint, on its face and without considering the defence, fails to disclose a cause of action, is barred by any law, is undervalued, or is insufficiently stamped. At this preliminary stage, the court is required to confine its examination strictly to the averments made in the plaint and not venture into the merits or veracity of the claims. If any triable issues arise from the pleadings, the suit cannot be summarily rejected. Keeping in mind this settled principle of law, we proceed to examine whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

9.5. Furthermore, Section 23 of the Registration Act mandates that any document required to be registered must be presented for registration within four months from the date of its execution. This requirement has not been fulfilled in the present case, as the power of attorney and the agreement to sell, both executed in 2014, remain unregistered. Despite the execution of the agreement to sell on 24.05.2014, no attempt was made by Respondent No. 1 to have it registered within the stipulated period. This inaction further supports the appellant's contention that the said agreement is not only inadmissible under Sections 17 and 49 of the Act, but also legally ineffective due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of timely registration. The failure to seek specific performance or register the document within the period prescribed under Section 23 renders the foundational document unenforceable in law. That apart, the revocation of the Board Resolution and Power of Attorney prior to the execution of the impugned sale deeds vitiates the authority under which those deeds were executed by Respondent No. 1. Accordingly,

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23786

HC-KAR

serious triable issues arise, which must be adjudicated by a competent civil court.

9.6. However, the High Court erred in treating the second cause of action - pertaining to the sale deeds registered on 19.07.2022 - as merely "academic", and proceeded to reject the plaint in its entirety without undertaking a judicial examination of this distinct issue. This approach is contrary to the well settled legal principle that a plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only if, on a plain reading of the plaint, it discloses no cause of action or falls within the other narrowly defined grounds under the said provision, such as under-valuation, insufficient court fees, or bar by any law. In this context, we may place reliance on the judgment in Central Bank of India (supra), wherein, this Court while examining the jurisdiction of civil courts in disputes involving immovable property and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, held that a plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety merely because one of the prayers or reliefs sought is legally untenable, so long as other reliefs are maintainable and based on independent causes of action. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:

"15. The plaintiff in her suit has prayed for 3 reliefs:

a) The first relief is in relation to a sale deed executed by Sumer Chand Jain in favour of Parmeshwar Das Prajapati.

b) The second relief is in relation to a mortgage deed executed by Parmeshwar Das Prajapati in favour of the bank.

c) The third relief is for being handed over the possession of the suit property.

24. Even if we would have been persuaded to take the view that the third relief is barred by Section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act, still the plaint must survive because there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. Hence, even if one relief

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23786

HC-KAR

survives, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. In the case on hand, the first and second reliefs as prayed for are clearly not barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI ACT and are within the civil court's jurisdiction. Hence, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

25. If the civil court is of the view that one relief (say relief A) is not barred by law but is of the view that Relief B is barred by law, the civil court must not make any observations to the effect that relief B is barred by law and must leave that issue undecided in an Order VII, Rule 11 application. This is because if the civil court cannot reject a plaint partially, then by the same logic, it ought not to make any adverse observations against relief B."

Therefore, the High Court's wholesale rejection of the plaint, without appreciating that the reliefs claimed flowed from multiple and distinct causes of action - particularly one arising after the revocation of the power of attorney - amounts to an improper application of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Selective severance of reliefs is impermissible where different causes of action are independently pleaded and supported by distinct facts.

9.7. Although the private respondents contend that the power of attorney was notarized, a consent letter was executed, and the transaction was reflected in the income tax records - while also asserting possession over the subject property and alleging that the suit was instituted merely to harass and disturb such possession - these are all matters that require adjudication during trial. Such factual disputes cannot be resolved at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, these contentions, even if raised, do not furnish a valid ground for rejection of the plaint at the threshold."

(emphasis supplied)

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23786

HC-KAR

The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court would clearly

indicate that the plaint, if at all, is to be rejected, it is to be the

whole and not partial. The petition thus deserves to succeed.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

[i] Writ Petition is allowed;

[ii] The order dated 30.03.2024 passed in O.S.NO.675/2022

on the file of the Hon'ble Court of the Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Malur, on I.A.No.3 filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 7, 24

and 38, stands quashed.