Karnataka High Court
Smt. Akkatayi W/O Ashok Naik vs Smt. Sevanta W/O Saiduberad on 26 September, 2025
-1-
CRP No. 100039/2023
RESERVED ON : 22.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100039 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. AKKATAYI W/O. ASHOK NAIK
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KALLOTTI, TQ. ATHANI
DIST. BELAGAVI-591304.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
1. SMT. SEVANTA W/O. SAIDUBERAD
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.09.26 AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE
14:38:10 +0530
R/O. KALLOTTI, TQ. ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591304.
2. SMT. PARVATI W/O. ARJUN NAIK
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KALLOTTI, TQ. ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591304.
3. SUB REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR
-2-
CRP No. 100039/2023
AT. ATHANI, TQ. ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS AT ATHANI
TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591304.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.G. ANANDASHETTI, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. S.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. PRAVEENA DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP FOR R3 TO R5;
NOTICE SERVED TO R2)
THIS CRP FILED U/S 115 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT PASS
BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, HAVERI IN O.S.NO.891/2022 DATED:06.08.2022
MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND TO ALLOW THE SAID
PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 23.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
This revision petition by the defendant No.1 in OS No.891
of 2022 on the file of principal civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, is
challenging the order dated 06th August 2022, by which order,
-3-
CRP No. 100039/2023
IA No.2 filed by her under Order VII Rule 11 read with section
151 of code of civil procedure, came to be rejected.
2. Brief facts leading to the present Revision Petition are
that plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction
against the defendants i.e. the present revision petitioner as
well as respondents 2 to 5, to declare that sale deed dated 24th
January, 2022, in respect of suit property based on 11E map is
not binding on the plaintiff and in furtherance permanently to
restrain defendants by an order of injunction from causing
obstruction. It is the case of plaintiff that the property involved
in the case is agriculture land bearing Sy.No.17 measuring 2,06
acres situate at Kallotti village of Athani Taluk, Belgavi district.
The plaintiff has got farm house with zinc sheets and has got a
Borewell drilled in the land on 22nd August, 2020, and that
plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said land.
It is contended that the suit property is allotted to her share in
the family arrangement between the plaintiff and her family
members and the same is on recorded in OS No.540 of 2013
Therefore, the said lawful and physical possession is with the
plaintiff. It is further contended that defendants 2 and 4 have
created a false and bogus 11E map by including the suit
-4-
CRP No. 100039/2023
property. In furtherance, the defendant No.4 has shown the
property of defendant No.2 to the Western side of the plaintiff
property instead of showing it towards Southern side. Further
the suit property is assigned with Sy.No.17/7 as of the plaintiff
and that of the defendants 1 and 2 as Sy.No.17/6 and so the
11E map is contrary to the ownership rights of the plaintiff and
hence it is illegal and therefore, is not binding on the plaintiff's
suit property. It is the further contention of plaintiff that
defendant No.4, prior to preparation of alleged 11E map dated
27th June, 2022, obtained signature of all the vahivatdaars of
Sy.No.17 and said that the divisions will be effected and the
map will be prepared according to their respective physical
possession. But the defendant No.4 prepared a map and also
showed physical position of properties of the plaintiff and also
defendant No.2 whose land lies to the Southern part of the
plaintiffs land. It is the further contention of plaintiff that no
Surveyor has come to the spot to conduct the survey and no
physical survey has been done. The alleged 11E map prepared
for the purpose of sale of 2.04 acres in Sy.No.1 held by
defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 with ulterior
motive, have included the property of the plaintiff. On all these
grounds, it was sought for decreeing the suit.
-5-
CRP No. 100039/2023
3. After appearance of defendant No.1, he has filed
application IANo.3 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section
151 of Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint. It is stated
that the plaintiff has no right over the suit property and there is
no relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The
defendant No.1 has purchased the suit property on 24th
January, 2022, and hence the plaintiff has no right over the
property. So also the trial Court has no jurisdiction to enquire
into the 11E sketch which is issued by the revenue authority.
The plaintiff has suppressed the facts and given false
information before the Court and hence the suit of the plaintiff
is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with exemplary
costs. On all these grounds, it was sought for rejection of
application.
4. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial
Court has rejected the Application IA.No.3. Being aggrieved by
rejection of the Application, the defendant No.1 has preferred
this revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner
would submit that the order passed by the trial Court is against
the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted the
-6-
CRP No. 100039/2023
trial Court has not considered the documents produced by
defendant No.1 in its right perspective which clearly prove that
there arises no cause of action for the plaintiff to initiate a suit
against the revision petitioner. He would submit that the
Sy.No.17/7 to an extent of 2.06 acres belong to the plaintiff and
is standing in the name of the plaintiff itself as elucidated before
the trial Court. The petitioner has got nothing to do with the
property of the plaintiff i.e. Sy.No.17/7 in an extent of 2.06
acres. He would further submit that the trial Court ought to
have allowed the Application filed by the petitioner, but on the
contrary it has dismissed the same. Hence it is set liable to be
set aside. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the
revision petition. To substantiate his argument, he has relied on
the Division Bench decision of this Court passed in Regular First
Appeal No.100259 of 2022 disposed of on 23rd July, 2025, in
the case of YELLAPPA AND OTHERS v. SMT. GEETABAI AND
OTHERS.
6. I have examined the materials placed before me.
Defendant No.1 who is the present Revision Petitioner had filed
IA.No.3 Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure to reject the plaint on the ground that there is no
-7-
CRP No. 100039/2023
cause of action to file the suit and the suit is not properly
valued as also the suit of plaintiff is barred by law. At
paragraphs 13 to 22 of the judgment, the trial court has
observed as under:
"13. This court has gone through the decisions relied by
learned counsel for the defendant No.1, I.A. No. III,
objections to I.A. No. III. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed
this suit for the relief of declaration to declare that the sale
deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the
defendant No. 1 on 24-01-2022 on the basis of 11E sketch
prepared without survey is not binding upon the plaintiff
and permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No.1
from interference to the possession of the suit property of
the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 has contended that there
is no cause of action to file the suit and same is created. It
is relevant to note that, when the plaint averments do not
discloses the cause of action, then, plaint of the plaintiff is
liable to be rejected and when the suit of the plaintiff is
falling under the provisions of U/Order 7 Rule 11-A to F.
14. It is relevant to note that, while rejecting of the
plaint, the court has to look into the plaint averments only,
not the contentions of the defendants. In this case, the
plaintiff has specifically contended in para No.8 to 12 of the
plaint that on the basis of created 11E sketch, by the
defendant No.2, which was produced before the Sub
Registrar a Sale deed has been created on 24-01-2022 and
the defendant No.1 has got mutated her name to the suit
property and she is threatening to the plaintiff and her
-8-
CRP No. 100039/2023
family members to dispossess them from the suit property
since 15 days. Further, on 03-07-2022, the defendant No.1
and his family have man handled and gave life threat to the
plaintiff and her family members, hence the plaintiff
approached the police authority, but the police have not
taken any action, since the dispute is civil in nature. The
plaintiff has requested the defendant No.1 and her family
members not to obstruct to the possession of the suit
property, but the defendant No.1 has not heard the request
of the plaintiff and her family members. The defendant no.1
is illegally trying to dispossess the plaintiff and the cause of
action is arisen last week of June 2022 and again on 03-07-
2022 and same is continued. It is relevant to note that the
plaintiff has filed plaint verifying affidavit and copy of the
police complaint dated 03-07-2022, copy of the out patient
receipts dated 03-07-2022 of plaintiff and one by name
Chandravva R. Bedar, issued by the Government hospital,
Athani. Thus, on perusal of the plaint averments, which
clearly depicts that, the plaintiff has stated the cause of
action to file the suit and interference by the defendant
No.1 to the suit property. The cause of action has to be
ascertained on the basis of bundle of facts stated in the
plaint. Therefore, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded the
cause of action to file this suit.
15. On perusal of the plaint averments, which clearly
discloses that the plaintiff has specifically stated the cause
of action to file this suit in para No.12 of the plaint and the
plaint averments clearly depicts the cause of action to file
the suit. The defendant No.1 has contended in I.A.No.III
that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law, but, she has
stated under which provisions and law suit is barred.
-9-
CRP No. 100039/2023
14. The defendant No.1 has contended that, the plaintiff
has not paid court fee on the sale deed amount of
Rs.1,27,000/- as per the market valuation mentioned in the
sale deed dated 24-01-2022, which is said to have been
executed by defendant No.2 in favor of defendant No.1 in
respect of the property to an extent of 2 acre 04 gunta of
R.S. No.17/6 of Kollatti village. It is relevant to note that
the plaintiff is not party to the said sale deed and she is not
claiming right and title over the property involved in the
said sale deed. The plaintiff specifically contended that the
defendants No.1 and 2 on the basis of created 11E sketch
got the registered sale deed, which is not binding upon her.
Under such circumstances, the contention of the defendant
No.1 is not tenable. It is not the case of the defendant No.1
that, this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit or
pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. In this case, as noticed
above the plaintiff is not party to the sale deed dated 24-
01-2022, under such circumstances, the contention of the
defendant No.1 is not tenable. However, it is settled
principle of law that, in respect of non payment of proper
court fee, the court has to determine the court fee on the
basis of the evidence produced by the party on the
preliminary issue and then, if the plaintiff fails to pay the
necessary and proper court fee, the court has to pass order
for non compliance of the order. In this regard, this court
has relied the decision in the case of Venkatesh R Desai
Vs Smt.Pushpa Hosmani And Ors passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnatak (FB), reported in I.LR. 2018 KAR
5095, wherein it is held and observed that,
- 10 -
CRP No. 100039/2023
"Accordingly, and in view of the above, we are clearly of
the view that by virtue of Section 11 of the Karnataka Court
Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 read with Order XIV
Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when an issue
of valuation and/or court fees is raised in a civil suit on the
objection of the defendant, the same is not invariably
required to be tried as a preliminary issue and before
taking evidence on other issues; but could be tried as
a preliminary issue if it relates to the jurisdiction and
the Trial Court is of the view that the suit or any part
thereof could be disposed of on its determination".
15. On perusal of the records placed by the plaintiff and
defendant No.1, this court is of the opinion that, the
necessary preliminary issue has to be framed after placing
the pleadings of the both parties and the relief sought by
the plaintiff has to be adjudicated and rights of the parties
are to be decided after evidence of the parties. The plaintiff
has denied the contentions taken by the defendant No.1 in
I.A.No.III. Under such circumstances, the inquiry of the
parties is necessary to adjudicate the subject matter of the
suit. On perusal of the documents placed by the defendant
No.1 are not proper to hold that the contentions taken by
the defendant No.1 is acceptable at this stage.
16. It is evident that, the defendant No.2 to 5 have not
yet appeared and suit summons not issued to the
defendants No.2 to 5. It is settled law that, the plaint
cannot be rejected in part. Under such circumstances, at
this stage, without hearing the other defendants, the
contention taken by the defendant No.1 to reject the plaint
is not tenable. This court has relied the decision in the case
- 11 -
CRP No. 100039/2023
of Madhava Prasad Aggarwal and another persons vs
Axis Bank Limited and another passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme court of Indian in SLP No.31579/2018 dated 1-
07-2019, wherein it is observed and held as under:
"Indubitably, the plaint can and must be rejected in
exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on
account of noncompliance of mandatory requirements or
being replete with any institutional deficiency at the time of
presentation of the plaint, ascribable to clauses (a) to (f) of
Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC. In other words, the plaint as
presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a
whole but not in part.
17. This court has gone through the above decision and
the said principles are applicable to this case. The relief
sought in the present application is not maintainable and
inquiry of the parties is necessary.
18. This court has relied the decision in the case of K.
Ramadoss Vs. E. Stalin, passed in Civil Revision Petition
(PD) No. 3546 of 2013 dated 12-02-2016 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Madras, wherein it is held and
observed that;
"Nothing has been provided in any of the sub clauses to
rule 11 under order 7 CPC for the rejection of the plaint
straightway on the ground of under valuation or payment of
deficit court fee.
19. This court has relied the decision in the case of A.P.
Varadarajulu and Another V/s. Yogapriya N. Kupparaju and
Others, reported in 2017(2) KCCR 1014, wherein it is held
and observed that;
- 12 -
CRP No. 100039/2023
"The rejection of the plaint can be made only on the basis
of plaint averments and not on the basis of the written
statement filed by the defendants.
20. This court has riled the decision in the case of, Mayar
(H.K).Ltd. and others V/s Owners and Parties.Vessel M.V
Fortune Express and others, since deceased by Lrs, passed
by the Hon'ble supreme Court of India, reported in AIR
2006 SC 1828, where in it is held and observed at para No.
11 as under, 11. '' From the aforesaid, it is apparent that
the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis the allegations
made by the defendant in his written statement or in an
application for rejection of the plaint. The court has to read
the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses
a cause of action and if it does, than the plaint cannot be
rejected by the court exicing the powers U/o VII Rule 11 of
the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause
of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on
the basis of averrments made in the plaint in its entirety
taking those averrments to be correct. A cause of action is
a bundle of facts, which are required to be proved for
obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts
are required to be stated by not the evidence expect in
certain case where the pleadings relied on are in regard to
misrepresentation, fraud, willful default, undue influence or
of the same nature. So long as the plaint discloses some
cause of action, which requires determination by the court,
mare fact that in the opinion of the judge the plaintiff may
not succeed cannot be a ground for rejections of the plaint.
In the present case averments made in the plaint, as has
been noticed by us, do disclose the cause of action and,
therefore, the High Court rightly said that the powers under
- 13 -
CRP No. 100039/2023
U/o VII Rule 11 of the Code cannot be exercised for
rejection of the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants.''
21. This court has gone through the above decisions. The
principles laid down in the said decisions are applicable to
this this. The plaintiff has specifically stated in the plaint
averments in respect of the cause of action to file the suit.
The defendant No.1 has sought to reject the plaint, in view
of the above discussion, the inquiry of the parties is
necessary.
22. It is well settled principals of law that, the partially
plaint cannot be rejected. It is settled principals of law that
the Court has to look into plaint averments while, passing
the order of rejection of the plant. The contention of the
defendant No.1 has to be appreciated after inquire of the
parties. This Court has gone through the above decisions
relied by the learned counsel for defendant No. 1. In view
of the above said reasons and discussions, in the humble
opinion of this court, the said decisions relied by the
learned counsel for defendant No.1 are not helpful to the
defendant No.1, at this stage to reject the plaint.
Considering, above stated reasons, facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Defendant
No.1 has not made out the grounds to grant the relief as
sought in I.A.No.III. Hence, in view of the above reasons
and discussions, this court answers Point No.1 in the
Negative."
7. The trial Court has properly appreciated the material
on record in accordance with law and has rejected the
Application IA.No.3. I do not find any error, illegality or
- 14 -
CRP No. 100039/2023
infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I
proceed pass the following:
ORDER
Present petition is liable to be, and accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
LNN
CT-CMU
