Karnataka High Court
Sudheer S/O Basayya Mathad vs Sidramayya Alias Siddayya S/O Sangayya ... on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15806
CRP No. 100005 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100005 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SUDHEER S/O BASAYYA MATHAD,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. KADAPATTI NOW AT ULLAGADDI ONI,
JAMAKHANDI-587 301, TQ. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
2. SANTOSH S/O BASAYYA MATHAD,
AGE. 39 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE NOW ADVOCATE,
R/O. KADAPATTI NOW AT ULLAGADDI ONI,
JAMAKHANDI-587 301, TQ. JAMAKHANDI,
Digitally signed by DIST. BAGALKOT.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
... PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.11.20
12:45:32 +0530
AND:
1. SIDRAMAYYA @ SIDDAYYA
S/O SANGAYYA MATHAD,
AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KADAPATTI, JAMAKHANDI-587 301,
TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
2. RACHAYYA S/O SANGAYYA MATHAD,
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15806
CRP No. 100005 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/O. KADAPATTI, JAMAKHANDI-587 301,
TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
3. SMT. BASAWWA W/O PARAYYA PUJARI,
AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KADAPATTI, JAMAKHANDI-587 301,
TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
4. SMT. SUSHILAWWA W/O RAMAYYA PUJARI,
AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KADAPATTI, JAMAKHANDI-587 301,
TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
5. SMT. DANAWWA D/O SANGAYYA MATHAD,
AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KADAPATTI, JAMAKHANDI-587 301,
TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
PETITION AGAINST R3 TO R5 DISMISSED AS ABATED)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A. NO.14
DATED 28.11.2023 IN O.S. NO.140/2015 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI, AT: JAMKHANDI, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15806
CRP No. 100005 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
This petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants No.2 and
3 assailing the order dated 28.11.2023 passed on I.A.No.XIV in
O.S.No.140/2015 on the file of Additional Civil Judge,
Jamkhandi1. The Trial Court rejected the petitioners' application
filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
19082.
2. The contesting plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 filed a
suit in O.S.No.140/2015. Reliefs relevant for the purpose of this
application are as under:
a) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to decree the suit of
plaintiffs in their favour declaring that the plaintiffs are
the absolute and exclusive owners of the suit schedule A
lands and schedule B house and open space properties
as lawful legatees by virtue of the will executed by
deceased Sangayya Mathad dated 05.09.1984.
For short, 'Trial Court'
For short, 'Code'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15806
HC-KAR
b) Further the declaration decree be passed in favour of
the plaintiffs that the Judgment and Decree passed in
O.S.No.96/1999 dated 02.08.2002 and judgment and
decree passed in R.A.No.135/2003 dated 08.08.2003
are not binding on the plaintiffs.
c) Consequentially a decree for injunction be passed in
favour of plaintiffs restraining the defendant No.1 to 3
from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and
enjoyment over the suit properties.
3. Relief (a) sought is a declaration that the plaintiffs/
(contesting respondents in this petition) are the owners of suit
schedule 'A' lands and suit schedule 'B' house property. The suit
properties described in schedules 'A' and 'B' are claimed under
the Will dated 05.09.1984 said to have been executed by
Sangayya Mathad. The plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 also
seek a declaration that the judgments and decrees passed in
O.S.No.96/1999 and R.A.No.135/2003 are not binding on them.
4. It is noticed from the averments made in the plaint that
the reference is made to the Will dated 05.09.1984 said to have
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15806
HC-KAR
been executed by Sangayya Mathad, as well as to the judgments
and decrees passed in O.S.No.96/1999 on the file of Principal
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jamkhandi, and R.A.No.135/2003
on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamkhandi.
Defendants No.2 and 3, who are the petitioners in this case, filed
an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code seeking
rejection of the plaint on the premise that the suit is time barred,
and is also hit by the principle of res judicata, as the issue
relating to the Will has already been adjudicated.
5. The Trial court rejected the application on the premise
that it was filed belatedly, after the commencement of trial.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
contend that the issue relating to the alleged Will dated
05.09.1984 was tried and decided in the earlier proceedings in
O.S.No.96/1999 and R.A.No.135/2003 referred to above. Both
the Courts held that the alleged Will dated 05.09.1984 is not
established. It is his further submission that the decree passed in
R.A.No.135/2003 dated 08.08.2003 has attained finality, and
therefore, the suit filed in the year 2015 challenging the said
decree is not maintainable as it is time barred.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15806
HC-KAR
7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents
No.1 and 2 would submit that the Trial Court was justified in
rejecting the application. It is his further submission that the
question relating to res judicata and limitation are mixed
questions of fact and law, which can be decided only after
recording evidence. It is also submitted that defendants No.1
and 2 filed the application belatedly, at a stage when the case
was posted for cross examination of PW.1 and PW.2. Hence, the
petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.
8. As can be noticed from the impugned order, the Trial
Court has rejected the application on the premise that the issue
relating to res judicata and pecuniary jurisdiction raised in the
application are required to be considered after a full-fledged trial.
The Trial Court has also held that the application was filed
belatedly.
9. It is the settled position of law that the application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code can be filed at any stage of
the proceeding. It is not necessary that it has to be filed before
commencement of trial.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15806
HC-KAR
10. It is also now settled that while considering the plea
relating to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the Court in addition to
the averments made in the plaint, can also look into the
documents referred to by the plaintiffs in the plaint. The
judgments in O.S.No.96/1999 and R.A.No.135/2003 are referred
to in the plaint. Said judgments would clearly establish that the
plaintiffs claim relating to the alleged Will dated 05.09.1984 said
to have been executed by Sangayya Mathad is negatived. In
addition to that, the judgment and decree passed in
R.A.No.135/2003 has attained finality in the year 2003, as the
appeal was decided on 08.08.2003.
11. Under these circumstances the suit of the plaintiffs is
barred under Section 11 of the Code as well as under the
provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, the Trial Court
committed an error in rejecting the application.
12. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) The writ petition is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15806
HC-KAR
b) I.A.No.XIV filed under Order VII Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in
O.S.No.140/2015 on the file of Additional
Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, is allowed.
c) The plaint in O.S.No.140/2015 on the file of
Additional Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, stands
rejected.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
PMP
CT:BCK
