[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sripal Jain vs S. Sreenivas on 22 January, 2026
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3760
CRP No. 156 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 156 OF 2023 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SRIPAL JAIN
S/O GOWTHAM CHAND JAIN,
AGED 38 YEARS,
R/AT NEHRU NAGAR, 23/3,
RAILWAY STATION, PARALLEL ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHUVANENDRA RAJU P AND
SRI. P.B RAJU, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. S. SREENIVAS
S/O SHIVARAMAIAH
Digitally signed AGED 38 YEARS,
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH 2. M.S.MANJULA
COURT OF D/O SHIVARAMAIAH
KARNATAKA AGED 32 YEARS,
THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
AGRICULTURISTS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
MALLASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST,
KASBA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.
3. SHARADAMMA G
W/O RAMASWAMY NAYAKA,
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3760
CRP No. 156 of 2023
HC-KAR
a) RAMASWAMY NAYAK H.C.
S/O LATE CHINNAGIRINAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
b) RAMESH H R
S/O LATE SHARADAMMA G
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
c) SURESH H.R.
S/O LATE SHARADAMMA G
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
d) SHOBHA
W/O LATE PRABHAKARA H.R.A
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT C/A NARASIMHAMURTHY C
H.NO.693, KUMBARA BEEDI,
NEAR GANGAMMA TEMPLE, HESARAGHATTA,
BANALORE - 560 088.
4. KANUMAKKA @ RAJAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
5. NATARAJ
S/O BALAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
6. PRAJVAL
S/O NATARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
7. PAVAN
S/O NATARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
8. HARISH
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3760
CRP No. 156 of 2023
HC-KAR
9. REKHA
W/O MADHUSUDHANA NAYAKA,
D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NOS. 4 TO 9 ARE ALL
R/AT GANDHINAGARA, SIRA TOWN
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137.
10. G.SUNANDA
D/O LATE GUJJARAPPA
W/O L SIDDESHWARA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT SIDDANAYAKA CIRCLE,
HIRIYUR TOWN-572 143.
11. VANITHA S
W/O G.KUMARASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
12. AKASH
S/O LATE G.KUMARASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
13. ASHISH
S/O LATE G.KUMARASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NOS.11 TO 13 ARE ALL
RESIDING AT M.C.ANJANEYAPPA AND SONS
BUILDING, SRI.VARI NILAYAM, NO.20, 1ST MAIN,
3RD CROSS, V NAGENAHALI MAIN ROAD,
HEBBAL GUDADAHALLI,
R.T.NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RATHAN.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
V/O DATED 19.12.2025, NOTICE TO R3 TO R13 IS D/W)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.10
IN OS NO.5/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:3760
CRP No. 156 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND JMFC, HIRIYUR. REJECTING THE IA NO.10 FILED UNDER
ORDER VII RULE 11(A AND B) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115
of the Code of Civil Procedure by defendant No.12, in
O.S.No.5/2014, being aggrieved of the impugned order
passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at
Hiriyur, rejecting the application filed in I.A.No.10 under
Order VII Rule 11(a)and (b) of CPC.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall
be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial
court.
3. The suit was filed by three grandchildren of late
Smt. Puttamma, W/o Gujjarappa seeking partition and
separate possession initially. However, subsequently
NC: 2026:KHC:3760
HC-KAR
defendant No.12 was impleaded while also seeking
amendment of the plaint and pursuant to the amendment,
to include a prayer to declare the alleged sale deed dated
11.02.2013 as illegal and void and further seeking a
declaration that the registered partition deed dated
05.11.2004 and any other documents created by Smt.
Puttamma, the 2nd defendant Smt. Kannumakka and her
husband, defendant No.9 - Sri G.Kumaraswamy are not
binding on the shares of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1
and 8. Learned counsel for defendant No.12 submits that a
plain reading of the plaint even after amendment does not
disclose any cause of action against defendant No.12.
Learned counsel submits that nowhere in the plaint, the
plaintiffs have claimed that the property in question viz.,
item No.1 of the suit schedule property was acquired by
Smt.Puttamma through her ancestors. Moreover, when
admittedly item No.1 belonged to Smt. Puttamma and
during her lifetime she sold the property in favour of
defendant No.12 by registered sale deed dated
NC: 2026:KHC:3760
HC-KAR
11.02.2013, the plaintiffs have failed to make out a case
for partition of item No.1 of the suit schedule property.
Learned counsel submits that it is for the plaintiff to show
the cause of action in the plaint against defendant No.12.
4. However, on the previous occasion this Court
had put a question to the learned counsel for petitioner as
to whether the plaint could be rejected only against
defendant No.12. For that purpose, learned counsel for the
petitioner has today placed reliance on a decision of a
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of
Motharma Pool Sundari .v. Gurban Singh and others
- AIR 1957 Rajasthan 97, where it was held that when
the court rejects a plaint against a particular defendant,
holding that there is no cause of action against the
defendant, there is a formal expression of adjudication by
that court and so far as that court is concerned, that
expression of adjudication conclusively determines the
right of the parties, viz., that in the view of that court, the
plaintiff has no right to a decree against that defendant.
NC: 2026:KHC:3760
HC-KAR
Learned counsel further places reliance on a judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Church of Christ
Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society
.v. Ponniyaman Educational Trust - 2012 8 SCC 706,
where it was held that in view of the shortfall in the plaint
averments and statutory provisions, namely, Order VII
Rule 11, Rule 14(1) and Rule 14(2), forms 47 and 48 in
Appendix-A of the Code, which are statutory in nature, the
Apex Court held that the learned single judge of the High
Court had correctly concluded that in the absence of any
cause of action shown as against the 1st defendant, the
suit cannot be proceeded either for specific performance or
for the recovery of money advanced which according to
the plaintiff was given to the 2nd defendant in the suit and
rightly rejected the plaint as against the 1st defendant.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs however
submits that defendants No.1 & 8 namely, Smt. G.
Sharadamma and Smt. G. Sunanda, who had executed the
sale deed along with Smt. Puttamma in favour of
NC: 2026:KHC:3760
HC-KAR
defendant No.12, have taken a stand in the written
statement that defendant No.12 has failed to pay the sale
consideration either to Smt.Puttamma or to defendant
No.1 and 8. Learned counsel submits that a police
complaint was lodged by defendant No.1 & 8 against
defendant No.12 and an FIR was registered against
defendant No.12. However, subsequently the FIR was
quashed holding that the dispute is of a civil nature and
therefore the complainants were directed to have recourse
to a civil litigation. In that view of the matter, learned
counsel submits that the matter requires a full-fledged
trial and without trial, the said issues cannot be gone into
and therefore at this stage the plaint cannot be rejected
against defendant No.12.
6. Heard the learned counsel for defendant No.12,
learned counsel for plaintiffs and perused the petition
papers.
NC: 2026:KHC:3760
HC-KAR
7. Having regard to the contentions raised by
defendant No.12 in the application filed under Order VII
Rule 11 (a) and (b) of CPC, this Court finds from the plain
reading of the plaint that nowhere have the plaintiffs
stated as to the nature of acquisition of the property more
particularly item No.1 with which we are concerned. It is
not stated as to whether Smt. Puttamma acquired the
property by herself or whether she acquired it from her
ancestors. Even otherwise, if it is presumed that item No.1
of the suit schedule property was acquired by Smt.
Puttamma through her ancestors, it will not preclude Smt.
Puttamma from disposing of the property. The bar placed
on the dispossession of ancestral joint family property in
terms of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, will not
apply to a female Hindu, who acquires the same even
under a partition. The express provision contained in
section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 declares that
any property possessed by a Hindu female acquired either
before or after the commencement of the Hindu
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3760
HC-KAR
Succession Act, 1956 shall be held by her as fully owned
and not limitedly owned. Nevertheless, since no such
information is forthcoming from a plain reading of the
plaint, merely by stating that fraud was played on Smt.
Puttamma, the plaintiffs cannot seek such a declaration
that the sale deed is not binding on the shares of the
plaintiffs. The pliant averments do not disclose any pre-
existing rights of the plaintiff over the suit schedule
property. Moreover, since defendant No.1 and 8 could
have instituted a suit for either seeking cancellation of the
sale deed or for recovery of the sale consideration and
they have failed to file such a suit, it will not enable the
plaintiffs to make such a prayer in the suit on behalf of
defendants No. 1 and 8 against defendant No.12. The
learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.12 is
therefore right in his submission that a plain reading of the
plaint does not disclose any cause of action against
defendant No.12.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3760
HC-KAR
8. Further, having regard to the judgments cited
by the learned counsel for petitioner, it is clear that it is
permissible for the court to reject a plaint as against one
defendant. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision
Petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-A
dated 23.01.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC at Hiriyuru in O.S. No.5/2014 on I.A. No.10 is
hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the
application in I.A.No.10 filed by defendant No.12 under
Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (b) of CPC is allowed and the
plaint stands rejected insofar as defendant No.12 is
concerned.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
KLY
