[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Yellamma vs Smt Jayamma on 20 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
RFA No. 2952 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2952 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. YELLAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAIAH @ RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
2. SMT. PUTTAMMA
D/O. LATE RAMAIAH @ RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
3. SMT. PARVATHI
D/O. LATE RAMAIAH @ RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
4. SRI. MUNISWAMY
S/O. LATE RAMAIAH @ RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
Digitally signed by
NAGARAJA B M ALL ARE R/AT NO.25
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
OLD BINNAMANGALA
INDIRANAGAR I PHASE
BENGALURU-560 038.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BHAT SHANKAR SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT JAYAMMA
W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
RFA No. 2952 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. SRI. RAVI KUMAR
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
3. SRI. NANDA KUMAR
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
4. SRI. PREMKUMAR
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5. SMT. SHYLAJA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
6. SMT. MUNIYELLAMMA
D/O. LATE RAMAIAH @ RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
7. SRI KRISHNA
S/O. LATE AMMAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
8. SRI. PRAKASH
S/O. LATE KANTHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
9. SRI. SRINIVAS
S/O. LATE KANTHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
10. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O. LATE RAMU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
NO. 1 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.25, OLD BINNAMANGALA
INDIRANAGAR I PHASE
BENGALURU-560 038.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
RFA No. 2952 of 2025
HC-KAR
11. SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SINGH
S/O RAM THOUKAL SINGH
AGED MAJOR
OLD BINNAMANGALA
INDIRANAGAR 1ST PHASE
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038.
12. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
D/O. LATE MALLAPPA
WORKING AT ISOLATION GOVT. HOSPITAL
OLD MADRAS ROAD
BENGALURU CIVIL STATION
BENGALURU.
13. SMT. PAPAMMA
W/O. LATE MARIYAPPA
WORKING AT ISOLATION GOVT. HOSPITAL
OLD MADRAS ROAD
BENGALURU CIVIL STATION
BENGALURU.
14. SMT. SUSHILAMMA
W/O. LATE MALLAPPA
R/AT OLD BINNAMANGALA
INDIRANAGAR 1ST PHASE
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038.
15. SMT. NANJUMUNNISA
W/O. ABDUL KHADAR SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT 26, MASJID STREET
NEELASANDRA CIVIL STATION
BENGALURU-560 018.
16. SMT. KANIEKYA MARY
W/O. MARIA DASS
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.20
3RD MAIN, GOUTHAM PURA
ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
RFA No. 2952 of 2025
HC-KAR
17. SMT. KRISHNAMMA
W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOU T 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.33, OLD BINNAMANGALA
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038.
18. SRI. MAHESHA
S/O. SRI GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.25
OLD BINNAMANGALA
INDIRANAGAR 1ST PHASE, INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 038.
19. SRI. ALLABAKASH
S/O. LATE CHAND PASHA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
20. SRI. IMRAM PASHA
S/O. LATE CHAND PASHA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R19 AND R20 ARE R/AT
OLD BINNAMANGALA
INDIRANAGAR 1ST PHASE
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 088.
21. SRI. NOORULLA
S/O. LATE SUNNAJAN
AND LATE SMT. AMEER BI @ MAZAN BI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.10, AMARJYOTHI NAGAR
BHARATH NAGAR, THANISANDRA
DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 077.
22. SRI. GANGADHAR .M
S/O. SRI MUNILINGAPPA .A
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.22, BINNAMANGALA
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
RFA No. 2952 of 2025
HC-KAR
1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 038.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THONTADARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P.B. AJITH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R18 TO R22)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S. 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2025 PASSED ON IA III
IN OS NO. 4773/2025, ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE IA NO. III FILED U/O VII RULE 11(a) AND (d)
R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is by the plaintiffs who are
aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint by the trial Court.
Hence, the present appeal.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred
to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiffs instituted a suit in
O.S.No.4773/2025 seeking partition and separate
possession in respect of three items of suit schedule
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
properties. In addition, they have sought a declaration
that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.11
dated 04.11.1960; the sale deed dated 05.05.1961
executed by defendant No.12 in favour of defendant
No.14; the sale deed dated 12.07.1961 executed in favour
of defendant No.13; the sale deed dated 15.03.1963
executed in favour of defendant No.15; the sale deed
dated 04.02.1970 executed by defendant No.15 in favour
of one Sunnajan @ Abdul Sab; and the subsequent sale
deeds dated 28.11.1975, 10.02.1994, 04.03.2016,
29.11.2018, 21.01.2021 and 23.04.2021 are not binding
on the plaintiffs' legitimate share in the suit schedule
properties.
4. The contesting defendants, who are subsequent
purchasers, entered appearance upon service of summons
and filed their written statements. They also filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code
of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
ground that the plaint averments do not disclose any
cause of action and that the suit is barred by law.
5. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing both
sides on the said application and upon consideration of the
objections filed by the plaintiffs, by the impugned order
rejected the plaint, holding that the plaint does not
disclose any cause of action.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs,
reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of
appeal, would contend that the learned Trial Judge has
erred in non-suiting the plaintiffs by invoking Order VII
Rule 11(a) of the CPC, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
He would submit that the learned Judge has misread the
averments in the plaint and has virtually conducted a mini-
trial at the threshold. Referring to the documents produced
along with the plaint, learned counsel would argue that
item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties continue
to be retained by the plaintiffs' family and that there are
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
no conveyances or alienations executed by the plaintiffs'
father in respect of these items.
7. It is further contended that insofar as item No.1
is concerned, the plaintiffs' father had only mortgaged the
property by way of mortgage by conditional sale and that
the said mortgage was subsequently redeemed, thereby
restoring full ownership and possession in favour of the
family. On these premises, it is urged that the issues
raised involve disputed questions of fact which require
adjudication after a full-fledged trial and cannot be
decided while considering an application under Order VII
Rule 11. In the alternative, it is submitted that even
assuming the alienations pleaded by the defendants, the
entire extent of all three items was never conveyed and,
therefore, the plaintiffs are at least entitled to seek
partition in respect of the portion retained by the family.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
contesting defendants would submit that the plaintiffs
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
have themselves produced title documents which clearly
establish that the suit schedule properties were the self-
acquired properties of the plaintiffs' father. He has placed
reliance on a tabular statement and a flow chart depicting
the chain of alienations commencing from 1958 up to
2021. Referring to these documents, he would contend
that the plaintiffs have unequivocally admitted that their
father had absolute title and, consequently, the plaintiffs
have no locus standi to question the alienations effected
by him. It is further contended that the plea now sought to
be advanced in the appeal, that a portion of the properties
remained unsold, does not find place in the plaint.
9. Learned counsel would further submit that the
materials placed on record clearly demonstrate that the
entire extent of the suit schedule properties has been
alienated long ago and that the present suit is a stale and
vexatious claim, filed without any subsisting right, only to
harass bona fide purchasers. He would therefore contend
that the learned Trial Judge has rightly exercised
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC and that
the impugned order does not call for interference.
10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties
and perused the pleadings and the reliefs sought in the
plaint. This Court has also carefully examined the
documents produced by the plaintiffs along with the plaint.
Upon such consideration, the following points arise for
consideration:
1. Whether the order passed by the Trial
Court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule
11(a) of the CPC suffers from perversity or
illegality warranting interference by this Court?
2. What order?
Finding on Point No.1:
11. Before this Court adverts to the order
impugned, this Court deems it fit to extract the crucial
pleadings which has a direct bearing on the plaintiffs claim
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
in the present suit. Para 6 would be relevant and the
same is extracted as under:
"6. The plaintiffs further submit that the ancestor
of plaintiffs i.e., Ramaiah @ Rangappa was acquired the
suit schedule properties of the house property No.321
as per Sale vide No.229/54-55 of 14-05-1954 alongwith
the title of Sale Deed vide Document No.984/1953-54
dated 10-08-1953 to an extent of portion, out of total
50x95 ft. in respect of Item No.1 to 3 of Suit Schedule
Properties. Thereafter, the said 3 extents of Item No.1
to 3 of Suit Schedule Properties was mortgaged the
same properties in favour of Defendant No.11 by the
Ramaiah @ Rangappa vide Mortgaged by conditional
Sale Deed Regd. No.1069/1958-59 dated 25-07-1958
for total sale consideration of Rs.200/- before the
witness of Sri Doddamarappa & Others. The certified
copies of Sale Deed dated 10-05-1954 and 10-08-1953
and Mortgaged conditional Sale Deed dated 25-07-1958
are produced herewith."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. On a careful reading of the extracted pleadings,
it becomes manifest that the plaintiffs have, in clear and
unequivocal terms, acknowledged that the suit schedule
properties, namely item Nos.1 to 3, were purchased by
their father, Ramaiah @ Rangappa, under a registered sale
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
deed dated 14.05.1954 from the erstwhile owner,
Jayaram. The plaint thus leaves no manner of doubt that
the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of the
plaintiffs' father and not ancestral or joint family
properties.
13. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that the
subsequent sale deed dated 18.02.1965 executed by their
father, Ramaiah @ Rangappa, along with plaintiff No.4,
who was admittedly a minor at the relevant point of time,
is invalid and not binding, on the premise that the said
alienation is contrary to Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act, 1956. By raising such a plea, the
plaintiffs themselves proceed on the admitted footing that
their father had executed conveyances in respect of the
suit schedule properties and that the challenge is confined
only to the legality of such alienations and not to the title
of their father over the properties.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
14. The plaint further discloses an express
admission, particularly in paragraph 22, that pursuant to
the sale deeds executed in favour of the contesting
defendants and their predecessors-in-title, the revenue
and municipal records maintained by the Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike reflect the names of the purchasers.
This admission unmistakably indicates that the alienations
have been acted upon and that the contesting defendants
are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
properties, with their names standing recorded in the
official records.
15. In the backdrop of these categorical admissions
contained in the plaint itself, this Court deems it
appropriate to extract paragraphs 21 and 22 of the plaint,
which read as under:
"21. The Plaintiffs submit that the Sale Deed
No.3484/1964-65 dated 18-12-1965 in the name of
Smt. Ameer Bi @ Mazan Bi, W/o. Sunnajan @ Abdul
Sab executed by Rangappa and his son Muniyappa i.e.,
2nd son was minor 10 years, Lingappa, 3rd son was
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
minor 4 years, Rama, 4th son was minor 2 years
Muniswamy, whose represented by their father
Rangappa vide property No.391, House property and
Angala vacant property measuring East to West: 30 ft.
and North to South: 42 ft. hence, entire suit schedule
property with other property are not disclosing the title
property and also boundary of peaceful possession of
sale deed dated 18-12-1965 and as such the said sale
deed, without having minor sale permission under
Section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
the sale deed dated 18-12-1965 is void document and
as such the alleged Sale Deed dated 10-12-1965 is not
binding on Plaintiffs.
22. The Plaintiffs submit that by misuse of extent
and boundary in property of No.321, the Defendant
No.11 to 14 are trying to interfere with our lawful
possession of suit schedule properties and rectified the
revenue records in BBMP limits by colluded with the
BBMP officials and as such Defendant No.19 to 21 have
not right, title or interest over the suit schedule
properties with another said property i.e., Item No.1 to
3 of the Suit Schedule Property as per said Sale Deed."
16. The aforesaid extracted paragraphs further
disclose that subsequent to the alienations effected by the
plaintiffs' father, the suit schedule properties have been
subjected to multiple transactions, with several
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
subsequent purchasers deriving title from their respective
predecessors-in-interest. The plaint itself traces a long
chain of conveyances, spanning several decades, thereby
demonstrating that the alienations were not isolated
transactions but were acted upon, followed by further
transfers, development and enjoyment by third parties.
17. In this backdrop, the reliefs sought by the
plaintiffs in the plaint assume considerable significance.
The plaintiffs, despite admitting the original acquisition by
their father and the subsequent alienations, have sought
wide-ranging declaratory reliefs to nullify not only the
primary conveyances executed by their father but also a
series of subsequent sale deeds executed by successive
purchasers. The nature and sweep of the prayers, when
read in conjunction with the admissions contained in the
plaint, are therefore required to be examined to ascertain
whether a legally sustainable cause of action is disclosed.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
18. Having regard to the admissions regarding
alienations, mutation of records, and the long lapse of
time during which the properties have changed hands, this
Court deems it appropriate to extract the prayer column of
the plaint, which reads as under:
"WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to pass an Order of Judgment & Decree
in favour of the Plaintiffs as:
(a) to effect partition of 4/9th jointly legitimate
shares of Plaintiffs by metes and bounds in respect of the
Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property.
(b) to hold the Defendant No.11, has sold in favour
of Defendant No.12 under the regd. Sale Deed vide
No.2220/1960-61 dated 04-11-1960 in respect of
property No.321, East to West 19½ ft., North to South 20
ft. is not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1
to 3 of the suit schedule property.
(c) to hold the Defendant No.11 has sold in favour
of Defendant No.13 under the regd. Sale Deed vide
No.2221/1960-61 dated 04-11-1960 in respect of
property No.321, East to West 19½ ft., North to South 20
ft. is not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of the Item
No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
(d) to hold the Defendant No. 12 has sold in favour
of Defendant No.14 to an extent of East to West 19 ½ ft.
and North to South 20 ft. under Sale Deed No.436/1961-
62 dated 05-05-1961 is not binding on the Plaintiffs in
respect of Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property.
(e) to hold the Defendant No.14 has sold in favour
of Defendant No.13 under Regd. Sale Deed
No.1216/1961-62 dated 12-07-1961 to extent of 19½ ft.
x 20 ft. vide property No.321 is not binding on the
Plaintiffs in respect of the Item No.1 to 3 of the suit
schedule property.
(f) to hold the Defendant No.13 has executed the
Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.15 under Regd. Sale
Deed No.3864/1962-63 dated 15-03-1963 to an extent of
19½ ft. x 20 ft. vide Property No.321 is not binding on
the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No. 1 to 3 of the suit
schedule property.
(g) to hold the Defendant No.15 was sold in favour
of one Sri Sunnajan @Abdul Sab, who is none other than
the ancestor of Defendant No.19 to 21, under the Sale
Deed No.3443/1969-70 dated 04-02-1970 is not binding
on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 to 3 of the suit
schedule property.
(h) to the Sri Sunnajan @ Abdul Sab was sold in
favour of his wife Smt. Ameer Bi @ Mazan Bi who are
father and mother of Defendant No.21 under regd. Sale
Deed vide No.2628/1975-76 dated 28-11-1975 not
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 to 3 of
the suit schedule property.
(i) to hold the Defendant No. 16 has sold in favour
of Defendant No.17 and her sister and aunty of
Defendant No.18 under Regd. Sale Deed No.3518/1993-
94 dated 10-02-1994 to an extent of East to West
39 ft. and North to South 20 ft. is not binding on the
Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule
property.
(j) to hold the Defendant No.17 has sold in favour
of Defendant No.14 under the regd. Sale Deed No.
10025/2015-16 dated 04-03-2016 in property No.321
new No.25 (25/3) to an extent of 50% out of East to
West 39 x 20 Sq.ft. is not binding on the Plaintiffs in
respect of Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property.
(k) to hold the Smt. Ameer Bi executed in favour
of her son by namely Chand Pasha, who is father of
Defendant No.19 & 20 has created the Gift Deed vide
No.8113/2018-19 dated 29-11-2018 is not binding on the
Plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule properties.
(l) to hold the Defendant No.21 has created the
Sale Deed dated 21-01-2021 vide No.8573/2020-21 is
not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit
schedule property.
(m) to hold the Defendant No.19 to 21 have
created the Sale Deed dated 23-04-2021 vide
No.850/2021-22 in respect of the Schedule 'B' and 'C'
Property is not binding on the Plaintiffs.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
(n) to restraining the Defendant No.18 to 20, 22
from alienating the Item No.1 to 3 of suit schedule
property in favour of 3rd parties until disposal of the suit.
(0) to restraining the Defendant No.18 to 20, 22
from putting up the construction in respect of the Item
No.1 to 3 of suit schedule property until disposal of the
suit.
(p) to grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit to grant, in the circumstances of the case
and award the cost of this suit in the ends of Justice and
Equity."
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. The extracted prayer column, when read in
conjunction with the pleadings, provides a deeper insight
into the chequered history of the suit schedule properties.
It clearly demonstrates that, after the initial alienations by
the plaintiffs' father, the properties have passed through
several hands and have been subjected to multiple
transactions over a long span of time. These alienations,
commencing as early as the year 1960, therefore require
to be examined in the light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Chhedilal Yadav and others Vs.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
Harikishore Yadav (dead) through legal
representatives and others1, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has cautioned courts against entertaining
belated challenges to transactions which have long
attained finality and have been acted upon by third
parties.
20. If the prayer sought in the present plaint is read
conjointly with paragraph 6 of the plaint, it becomes
manifest that the plaintiffs do not assert any independent
or original right over the suit schedule properties. On the
contrary, they unequivocally trace their alleged right only
by way of inheritance through their father, Ramaiah.
Having admitted that the suit schedule properties were
self-acquired properties of their father, the crucial question
that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs have
any locus standi to seek partition by inheritance after their
father had alienated the properties during his lifetime.
(2018) 12 SCC 527
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
21. A holistic reading of the entire plaint further
discloses that the plaintiffs' father, Ramaiah, never
questioned or challenged any of the alienations during his
lifetime. Though the learned Trial Judge could have also
examined the issue from the standpoint of Order VII Rule
11(d) of the CPC read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act,
1963, the learned Judge has consciously confined the
enquiry to the narrower but decisive question as to
whether the plaint discloses any cause of action.
22. On a deeper scrutiny of the plaint averments,
this Court has no hesitation in holding that the present suit
is a classic instance of a stale and dead claim being sought
to be resurrected. The plaint reflects a feeble and ill-
conceived attempt to misuse the process of law by
instituting a frivolous suit which, on the face of it, does not
disclose any cause of action whatsoever.
23. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as this Court have consistently held that the
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
averments in the plaint must, in substance, spell out a
clear and subsisting cause of action. If the pleadings fail to
disclose such cause of action, the plaint is liable to be
rejected at the threshold. In the present case, the
plaintiffs' father admittedly lost all subsisting rights in
respect of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the sale
deeds executed on 25.07.1958 and the subsequent
registered sale deeds dated 04.11.1960, 04.11.1960 and
18.02.1965.
24. The title documents produced by the plaintiffs
themselves, unmistakably reveal that Shivaprasad Singh,
who purchased the properties, subsequently sold them to
Muniyamma, Papamma and partly to the plaintiffs' father.
The portion purchased by the plaintiffs' father on
18.02.1965 was again alienated by him on the very same
day in favour of Majan Bi. Thereafter, the properties
continued to change hands through a series of registered
transactions, including gifts and further sales, culminating
in alienations extending up to the year 1994 and beyond.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
25. This uninterrupted chain of transactions,
commencing from 1960 and extending over several
decades, clearly establishes that the plaintiffs' father had
completely lost his title and interest over the entire extent
of the suit schedule properties. Even the limited portion
re-purchased by him on 18.02.1965 was immediately
alienated on the same day, thereby extinguishing any
subsisting right.
26. Therefore, the core issue that arises for
consideration is whether the plaint, as a whole, discloses
any cause of action at all. For the purpose of adjudicating
an application under Order VII Rule 11, the Court is
required to examine only the averments in the plaint. The
pleadings and the reliefs sought therein unequivocally
demonstrate that the plaintiffs' father had lost all rights,
title and interest in the suit schedule properties as early as
18.02.1965. The plaintiffs themselves have produced the
title documents and have admitted that their father was
the absolute owner and that the properties have
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
undergone multiple alienations. On the basis of the
plaintiffs' own pleadings and documents, it is evident that
no cause of action survives.
27. A suit instituted in the year 2025, seeking to
unsettle transactions that have attained finality between
1960 and 1965, is nothing but a speculative and frivolous
attempt to rake up settled issues, clearly lacking bona
fides.
28. On a cumulative reading of the entire plaint,
this Court finds that it does not disclose even a fragment
of a cause of action warranting adjudication. The power
under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC is intended
precisely to deal with such cases, so as to nip frivolous and
vexatious litigation in the bud. In such circumstances, the
Court of first instance is not obliged to relegate the parties
to a full-fledged trial.
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly
observed that such litigations are often initiated not with a
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
genuine expectation of success, but with the object of
prolonging litigation and exerting pressure on bona fide
purchasers, in the hope of extracting a settlement.
30. It is also a matter of common judicial notice
that properties situated in Bengaluru have witnessed
exponential escalation in market value over the past few
decades. This escalation has unfortunately given rise to a
spate of speculative and stale claims, wherein litigants
seek to reopen long-settled transactions with oblique
motives. The repeated insistence by the plaintiffs' counsel
that the matter requires a full-fledged trial, in the facts of
the present case, itself betrays the intention to keep the
litigation alive rather than to seek genuine adjudication.
Courts are therefore required to be vigilant and adopt a
pragmatic and sensitive approach to protect the rights of
bona fide purchasers.
31. In the present case, this Court has no hesitation
in holding that the plaint does not disclose any cause of
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
action. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Saleem Bhai and Others vs. State of Maharashtra
and Another2, Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanushali (Gajra), through LRs. and Others3, and
Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh4,
squarely apply to the facts of the present case. These
decisions unequivocally hold that stale claims, devoid of a
subsisting cause of action, deserve to be rejected at the
threshold.
32. In the light of the foregoing discussion and
analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the
Court of first instance has correctly applied the principles
governing Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. The Trial Court
has rightly concluded that the plaint does not disclose any
cause of action. The findings recorded by the Trial Court
clearly demonstrate due consideration of the plaint
averments, the reliefs sought, and the title documents
(2003) 1 SCC 557
(2020) 7 SCC 366
(2020) 16 SCC 601
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3051
HC-KAR
produced by the plaintiffs themselves. The contention that
such issues necessarily require a full-fledged trial is wholly
misconceived. This Court, therefore, holds that the suit is
frivolous and an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly,
Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
Finding on Point No.2:
33. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58
