Sri A H Prabhu vs A.Y. Virupanna, B.Com, Fca
2026 Latest Caselaw 89 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri A H Prabhu vs A.Y. Virupanna, B.Com, Fca on 8 January, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE   08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                         PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                            AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.894 OF 2025 (PAR)


BETWEEN:

SRI. A.H. PRABHU
S/O A.V. HANUMANT RAO
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
CLOTH MERCHANT
R/O D.No.243
CHAMARAJPET
DAVANGERE-577 001
                                           ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. REVANNA BELLARY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

      A.Y. VIRUPANNA, B.Com, FCA
      S/O AMBERKAR DODDAYELLAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
      DEAD BY LR'S

1.    SMT. SHAILA AMBERKAR
      W/O LATE VIRUPANNA A.Y.
      AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

2.    SMT. SHILPA KEETHNIKAR
      W/O LATE VIRUPANNA A.Y.
      AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

      BOTH ARE HOUSE HOLD
      R/O. #3352/A-17/1
                                 2




     7TH CROSS, MCC 'B' BLOCK
     DAVANAGERE-577 004

3.   SMT. B.V. YELLAMMA
     D/O AMBERKAR DODDAYELLAPPA
     W/O VIJAYENDRA B.L.
     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
     R/O. VILLA BA # 57, GOLDEN HOMES
     1ST PHASE, AT LIBERTY ACRES
     INDELEBELE VILLAGE, ATTIBELE TOWN
     BENGALURU-562 107

4.   AMBERKAR L. YELLAPPA RAO
     S/O AMBERKAR V. LAXMAN RAO
     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
     BUSINESS,
     # 3714/32, 11TH CROSS
     MCC A BLOCK
     OPP. BAKKESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL
     DAVANGERE-577 004

5.   A.N. MADANKUMAR
     S/O AMBERKAR V. LAXMAN RAO
     AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
     C/O M/S. AMBERKAR VIRUPANNA TEXTILES
     OPP. OLD BUS-STAND, P.B. ROAD
     DAVANGERE-577 001

6.   A.N. MOHANA
     S/O NARSINGRAO E. AMBERKAR
     AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
     C/O M/S AMBERKAR VIRUPANNA TEXTILES
     OPP. OLD BUS-STAND, P.B.ROAD
     DAVANGERE-577 001

7.   RAMESH A.N.
     S/O NARASINGARAO E. AMBERKAR
     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
     C/O AMBERKAR VIRUPANNA TEXTILES
     OPP. OLD BUS STAND, P.B. ROAD
     DAVANGERE-577 002
                            3




8.   SMT. USHA BAI
     D/O NARASINGARAO E. AMBERKAR
     W/O LATE RAMA RAO GUJJAR
     AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
     C/O AMBERKAR VIRUPANNA TEXTILES
     OPP. OLD BUS STAND, P.B. ROAD
     DAVANGERE-577 002

9.   SMT. MAMATHA
     D/O NARASINGARAO E. AMBERKAR
     W/O VITTAL RAO GUJJAR
     AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
     C/O AMBERKAR VIRUPANNA TEXTILE
     OPP. OLD BUS STAND, P.B. ROAD
     DAVANGERE-577 002

10 . SMT. SHOBHA
     D/O NARASINGARAO E. AMBERKAR
     W/O ARUN SARVADE
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
     C/O AMBERKAR VIRUPANNA TEXTILES
     OPP. OLD BUS STAND, P.B. ROAD
     DAVANGERE-577 002

11 . SMT. SUDHA
     D/O NARASINGARAO E. AMBERKAR
     W/O MOHANRAO GUJJAR
     AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
     C/O AMBERKAR VIRUPANNA TEXTILES
     OPP. OLD BUS STAND, P.B. ROAD
     DAVANGERE-577 002

12 . SRI. A.H. VIRUPANNA
     S/O LATE A.V. HANUMANTHA RAO
     AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
     R/O. #1971, MCC A BLOCK
     NEAR ACHARYA HOSPITAL
     DAVANAGERE-577 004

13 . DR. A.H. SURYAKANTHA
     S/O LATE A.V. HANUMANTHARAO
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
     R/O D.No.1655/46-47
                             4




    S.S. LAYOUT
    BEHIND BUSNUR PRINTING PRESS
    SHAMANUR ROAD
    DAVANGERE-577 005

14 . A.H. CHANDRAKANTHA
     S/O LATE A.V. HANUMANTHARAO
     AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
     C/O AMBERKER VIRUPANNA
     KALIKA DEVI ROAD
     DAVANAGERE-577 001

15 . A.H. SATHISHA
     LATE A.V. HANUMANTHARAO
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
     CLOTH MERCHANT
     C/O AMBERKER VIRUPANNA
     # 243, CHAMARAJPETE
     DAVANAGERE-577 001

16 . A.H. HARISHA
     S/O LATE A.V. HANUMANTHARAO
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
     C/O AMBERKER VIRUPANNA
     # 243, CHAMARAJPETE
     DAVANAGERE-577 001

17 . SMT. RAJESHWARI
     D/O LATE A.V. HANUMANTHARAO
     W/O GANATHI RAO D.SHANDAGI
     AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
     R/O. #3428/11, OPP. SAPTHAGIRI SCHOOL
     KUNDUWADA ROAD, CHIGATERI LAYOUT
     DAVANGERE-577 006

18 . SMT. SARALA S. AMATE
     D/O LATE A.V. HANUMANTHARAO
     W/O SRIKANTH G. AMATE
     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
     R/O. 'PAVAN', D. No.3682/A-94
     TARALABALU BADAVANE
     VIDYANAGAR, DAVANGERE-577 005
                                5




19 . SMT. SHAILAJA C. RANGADOL
     D/O LATE A.V. HANUMANTHARAO
     W/O CHANDRAMOHAN R. RANGADOL
     AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
     C/O M/S R.G. RAMAPPA AND SONS
     AMEER AHMED CIRCLE, SHIMOGA

20 . REKHA M. NAZARE
     D/O LATE A.V. HANUMANTHARAO
     W/O MOHAN NAZARE
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
     R/O. #1656/12, 1ST MAIN
     4TH CROSS, S.S. LAYOUT
     'A' BLOCK, SHAMNUR ROAD
     NEAR KARNATAKA BANK
     DAVANAGERE-577 005
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)

     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.01.2025 PASSED ON IA
No.III IN O.S.No.104/2024 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE, ALLOWING THE
IA No.III FILED U/O VII RULE 11 (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT AND ETC.


     THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON    08.12.2025       AND   COMING    ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:   HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
         and
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                                  6




                      CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This Regular First Appeal is filed aggrieved by the

Order on I.A.No.III dated 24.01.2025 passed by the III

Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere ('trial

Court' for short) in O.S.No.104/2024.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per the rankings before the trial Court.

3. We have heard Shri. Revanna Bellary, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and Shri. G.B.

Nandish Gowda, learned counsel appearing for

caveator/respondent No.5/defendant No.4.

4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession of

the suit schedule property asserting that the plaintiff and the

defendants are members of a joint family and that the

property is joint family property, entitling the plaintiff to a

1/20th share. Defendant No.4 filed a written statement

contending that he is the adopted son of A.V. Rama Rao and

Parvathi Bai, that A.V. Rama Rao died leaving defendant

No.4 as a sole legal heir and that the plaintiff and the other

defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit

schedule property. Thereafter defendant No.4 filed an

Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the

Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the

ground that it discloses no cause of action.

5. It was stated that the plaintiff intentionally and

knowingly suppressed the existence of the Adoption Deed

and instituted a suit for partition and separate possession on

the false premise that A.V. Rama Rao died intestate.

According to defendant No.4, by virtue of the Registered

Adoption Deed, he became the absolute owner of the suit

schedule property and since the plaint does not disclose any

real cause of action, he sought rejection of the plaint under

Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. The plaintiff contended that while considering an

application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil

Procedure, the Court must confine itself strictly to the

averments made in the plaint. The pleas raised by the

defendant in the written statement or in the application for

rejection of plaint on merits would be irrelevant and cannot

be adverted to or taken into consideration. It was further

contended that the Court may look only into the documents

referred to or relied upon in the plaint and not into

documents produced or relied upon by the defendant.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court

framed the following point for consideration:-

"Whether defendant No.4 has made out ground to reject the plaint by invoking the provisions Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C, for want of cause of action?"

8. The trial Court observed that the plaintiff had not

approached the Court with clean hands and was guilty of

suppression of material facts and misrepresentation and

therefore was not entitled to any relief. Relying upon the

observation of the Apex Court, it was held that where a

plaint does not disclose a cause of action or the suit is

barred by law, the Court should not permit the plaintiff to

unnecessarily protract the proceedings. When a suit

amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, being

vexatious or meritless the power under Order VII Rule 11(d)

of the Code of Civil Procedure, can be exercised.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

contends that the trial Court passed the impugned order on

I.A.No.III without properly considering the objections filed

by the appellant and erroneously relied upon the judgments

of the Apex Court cited by defendant No.4, which were not

applicable to the facts of the present case. The impugned

order is perverse, unsustainable in the eye of law contrary to

settled principles and suffers from infirmities. It is further

contended that the trial Court failed to confine itself to the

averments made in the plaint, the documents produced by

the appellant, instead relied upon the written statement and

documents produced by defendant No.4. The settled legal

position that only plaint averments are to be considered

while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of

the Code of Civil Procedure was ignored and the plaint was

rejected without valid or cogent reasons.

10. It is also contended that the trial Court wrongly

held, particularly in paragraphs No.11 to 15 of the impugned

order, that defendant No.4 alone has rights over the suit

schedule property and that the other parties in

O.S.No.104/2024 have no rights therein, which amounts to

adjudicating the merits of the case at the interlocutory

stage. It is further submitted that I.A.No.III could be

allowed if the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a

cause of action and not on disputed questions of title. It is

further contended that the trial Court incorrectly concluded

that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, despite

the same being clearly pleaded in paragraph No.10 of the

plaint. Whether such cause of action is true or sustainable

requires evidence and is a mixed question of law and facts,

which can be decided only after a full-fledged trial. Not

conducting a full-fledged trial at the stage of deciding

I.A.No.III is impermissible. It is further contended that the

reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the plaint

are unsustainable and that the propositions laid down in the

Apex Court judgment relied upon by the respondent are

inapplicable to the facts of the present case.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

P.V. Guru Raj Reddy & Another v. P. Neeradha Reddy

and Others, by order dated 13.02.2015 passed in Civil

Appeal No.5254 of 2006. The paragraphs No.5 and 6 of

the said judgment, read as follows:-

"5. Rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order VII rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that has to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order VII rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial.

6. In the present case, reading the plaint as a whole and proceeding on the basis that the averments made therein are correct, which is what the Court is required to do, it cannot be said that the said pleadings ex facie discloses that the suit is barred by limitation or is barred under any other provision of law. The claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action as pleaded will have to be accepted as correct. At the stage of consideration of the application under Order VII rule 11 the stand of the defendants in the written statement would be altogether irrelevant."

12. The learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.5, on the other hand, contended that the suit itself was

an abuse of process of the Court. It is submitted that

respondent No.5 is the adopted son of A.V. Rama Rao and

Parvathi Bai. This fact was perfectly known to all the

members of the family including the plaintiffs. It is

submitted that A.V. Rama Rao passed away on 18.09.1970.

Thereafter, respondent No.5 who was the adopted son had

been enjoying the property as the legal heir of A.V. Rama

Rao. The revenue records were mutated in his name and he

was openly in possession of the property to the exclusion of

all others. It is submitted that the plaint filed alleging that

A.V. Rama Rao died issueless on 18.09.1970 and that the

appellant is in illegal possession of the property, is clearly an

abuse of process of Court. It is submitted that the adoption

deed dated 23.08.1959 was a registered document and that

the adoption was common knowledge and was intentionally

suppressed by the appellant herein.

13. We have considered the contentions advanced.

The specific contention in the plaint was that the schedule

property was allotted to the share of A.V. Rama Rao, who

died issueless on 18.09.1970. The plaint averment was that,

Katha was taken in the name of defendant No.4 - A. N.

Madankumar and he is attempting to alienate the schedule

property to defeat share and rights of the parties to the

case. Paragraph No.10 of the memorandum of plaint reads

as follows:-

"10. A cause of action aroses on when 03.12.2023, when the Plaintiff has came to knowledge that the Defendant no.4 has took Katha of the schedule property in his name and obtained Certified Copy of the Partition Deed dated 08.11.1939 on 04.12.2023 and Katha extract on 12.03.2024 and it is came to knowledge that the Defendant no.4 is trying to dispose the schedule property on 03.12.2023 and obtained copies of the documents

above and approached the Defendant no.4 and other defendants on 07.04.2024 for partition of the schedule property and refused by them. Hence, this suit filed on today is in time."

14. It is obvious that the attempt of the appellant

was to mislead the Court by suppressing the registered

adoption deed dated 23.08.1959. It is true that the said

deed of adoption was produced by defendant No.4 and was

not part of the plaint averments. However, it is also clear

that the appellant has no contentions, on facts, as against

the written statement filed by defendant No.4 or the fact of

a Registered Adoption deed dated 23.08.1959 by which A.V.

Rama Rao and his wife Parvathi Bai adopted defendant No.4

in the suit. It needs no reiteration that a plaint filed

suppressing material facts can be rejected at the first

instance itself, if such suppression is found by the Court.

15. The Apex Court in Ramjas Foundation and

another v. Union of India and others reported in (2010)

14 SCC 38 has clearly considered the issue and held at

paragraph No.21 as follows:-

"21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case."

16. The Apex Court has clearly held that the rule

against suppression is applicable to all judicial proceedings

and not merely to discretionary exercise of power. The trial

Court has proceeded to consider the facts of the instant case

and the power of the Court to reject a plaint when the

attempt by the plaintiff is to suppress material facts so as to

gain an undue advantage, such suppression clearly amounts

to an abuse of process of Court. These aspects of the matter

have been specifically considered by the trial Court with

reference to the judgments on the point.

17. Having considered the contentions advanced and

in the light of the inability of the appellant to raise any

contentions with regard to the Registered Adoption Deed

dated 23.08.1959; we are of the opinion that there is no

error in the exercise of the power for rejection of the plaint

by the trial Court. No good grounds having been made out,

the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

All pending interlocutory applications shall stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

cp*