IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAJESH RAI K., ANU SIVARAMAN
Chandrappa, S/o Late Thore Sallappa – Appellant
Versus
Narayanappa, S/o Late Agadoorappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
This Regular First Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.3 dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal in O.S.No.88/2018 ('trial Court' for short), rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ('CPC' for short).
2. We have heard Shri. S. Srivatsa, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. S Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. B.S Raghuprasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.14 to 17, 27 and 28.
3. The suit was filed seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule property land bearing Sy.No.28 measuring to an extent of 7 acres 14 guntas situated at Yadavanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The plaintiff contended that Agadoorappa and his wife Sakamma had six children. The plaintiff is the son of Thore Sallappa, the eldest of Agadoorappa and Sakamma. It was contended that defendants No.1 to 11 and the plaintiff constitute an Undivided Hindu Family and that the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share out of 1/6th share in suit schedule property and to declare that the sal
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another
Smt. Mallamma and Others v. Shri. Mallegowda @ Karigowda and Others
Smt. Shakuntala and Others v. Basavaraj and Others
Suresh Kumar Dagla v. Sarwan and Another
Khatri Hotels Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another
Bhargavi Constructions and Another v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Others
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through LRs. and Others
A plaint that is barred by law cannot be amended; thus, it must be rejected outright if it fails to disclose a cause of action.
Court emphasized that rejection of plaint under CPC Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic measure to be used sparingly, requiring careful scrutiny of plaint averments while avoiding reliance on defense clai....
The court affirmed that previous judgments preclude new claims conflicting with established decrees, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural rules regarding amendments and the limitatio....
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) for lack of cause of action, even without a defendant's application, if the plaintiffs have no valid claim to relief.
(1) Amendment of plaint – No application for amendment shall be allowed after trial has commenced, unless Court comes to conclusion that in spite of due diligence, party could not have raised the mat....
A trial court must not reject a plaint due to limitations or merits without allowing the necessary factual determination, especially when a suit for partition can be filed upon arising cause of actio....
Amendments to pleadings are essential for effective adjudication and should be allowed unless they change the nature of the suit or cause irreparable prejudice to the other party.
The challenge to a registered partition deed must be made within the limitation period, and if the deed has been acted upon by the parties, it may not be entertained by the court.
Rejection of plaint – Plaint cannot be rejected in part.
The court ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected at the initial stage if it demonstrates a cause of action, emphasizing the need for a full trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.