[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt T C Yashodhamma vs Sri C R Krishna Reddy on 17 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1878 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
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.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.S.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI. C. R. KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKA RAMAIAH,
ALIAS CHIKKA RAMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT THIGALACHOWDENAHALLI,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
2
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 087.
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.
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.
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.
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.
6. SMT. KRISHNAVENI
D/O LATE CHIKKA RAMAIAH
ALIAS CHIKKA RAMAREDDY,
W/O THIMMARAYA REDDY,
3
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT HANDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 125.
7. SRI. K. VIVEKANANDA
S/O C. R. KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT THIGALA CHOWDANADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 087.
8. SRI. K. SHASHENDRA KUMAR
S/O C. R. KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT THIGALA CHOWDANADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 087.
9. SMT. PRABHAVATHI
W/O SRI. C. GOPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
10 . SRI. G. SHREEDHARA
S/O SRI C. GOPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
11 . KUM. CHERISHMA S. REDDY
D/O SRI. G.SHREEDHARA,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN HER FATHER
12 . SRI. G. BHUVANESH
S/O SRI. C. GOPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 12 ARE
R/AT THIGALACHOWDANADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
4
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 087.
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.
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.
...RESPONDENTS
(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)
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.
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:
5
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This Regular First Appeal is filed challenging the Order
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.
2. 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
caveator/respondents No.2, 9, 10 and 12 and Shri. A.
Madhusudana Rao, learned counsel appearing for
caveator/respondent No.1.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per the rankings before the trial Court.
4. The suit was filed seeking partition and separate
allotment of plaintiff's 1/7th 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.
5. 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 1/3rd
share in the property.
6. 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
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.
7. 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.
8. Defendant No.1 filed written statement
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 self-
acquired property of defendant No.1.
9. Defendants No.2 and 9 to 14 filed I.A.No.XIV
under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and (d) read with Section
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
for partition and separate possession and prayed for
rejection of plaint.
10. 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.
11. 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'
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.
12. 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.
13. 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
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.
14. 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
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.
15. 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.
Consequently, the appellant was denied an opportunity to
contest the said documents.
16. 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.
17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has relied on the following decisions:-
• 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:-
"8. x x x x x It is settled position of law
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 "
• Geetha D/o Late Krishna and Ors. v.
Nanjundaswamy & Ors reported in 2023 SCC online
SC 1407;
• G.Nagaraj and Another v. B.P.Mruthunjayanna and
Ors., by reported in 2023 SCC online SC 1270;
• Shaukathussain Mohammed Patel v. Khatunben
Mohmmedbhai Polara reported in (2019) 10 SCC
226;
• Alpana Gupta v. APG Towers Pvt. Ltd reported in
(2019) 15 SCC 46;
• Pawan Kumar v. Babulal by LRs reported in (2019) 4
SCC 367;
• Urvashiben & Another v. Krishnakant Manuprasad
Trivedi, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 372;
• Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors
reported in (2020) 6 SCC 557;
• Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat
& Ors reported in AIR 2021 SC 3802;
• Kamala & Ors. v. K.T.Eshwara Sa & Ors reported in
(2008) 12 SCC 661;
• Kale & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation &
Ors reported in AIR 1976 SC 807;
• K.G.Shivalingappa (D) by LRs & ors. v.
G.S.Eswarappa & Ors reported in 2004 AIR SCW
4435;
• Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad & Ors
reported in AIR 2018 SC 3152;
• Vidya Devli Alias Vidya Vati (Dead by LR's) v. Prem
Prakash & Ors reported in AIR 1995 SC 1789;
• Gopalaiah & Ors. v. Smt. Jayakumari & Ors reported
in 2013 SCC online Kar 10159, and
• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors reported in
(2020) 9 SCC 1.
18. 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
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.
19. 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.
20. 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 1/3rd 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.
21. In the instant case, defendant No.1 filed written
statement alleging that a partition had been effected in
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.
22. The main contention of the defendants in the suit
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.
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
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.
23. 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
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.
24. 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
stands admitted or is required to be proved is also another
aspect of the matter.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. In the result:-
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The Order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at
Anekal in Original Suit No.146/2009, is
hereby set aside.
(iii) The suit shall be considered and disposed
of, in accordance with law without undue
delay.
Ordered accordingly.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*
