The court held that a previous compromise affecting family property cannot bar suit without established awareness and proper valuation, emphasizing that plaint averments must be read as a whole.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH RAI K, J.

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.2/2025 filed by defendant No.15 i.e., respondent No.15 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.8268/2011 before the learned XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for brevity "the Trial Court") whereby, the Trial court allowed I.A.No.2/2025 and consequently, rejected the plaint as the suit is barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC and for want of cause of action.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court.

3. The abridged facts of the case are as under:

The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. One Venugopalswamy Naidu was the grandfather of the plaintiffs, who died intestate on 03.09.1977 leaving behind his wife one Kamalamma and three sons namely P.V.Nirmal Kumar (father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and husband of defendant No.1), P.V.Manjunath (defendant No.4), P.V.Umapathi Naidu (defendant No.5) and a daughter - Smt.Sabitha (defendant No.3). Since defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 were dead, they were represented by their legal representatives.

4. Defendant No.15, being the subsequent purchaser of suit schedule 'A' property filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking rejection of plaint as there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit, the subject matter of the suit was not properly valued and that the suit was barred by law.

5. The plaintiffs filed their objections to the said application.

6. The Trial Court, upon perusal of the pleadings of the parties as enumerated in the plaint, I.A.No.2/2025 and objections, framed the following point for consideration:

"Whether there exist sufficient grounds to reject the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action to file suit and cause of action shown in plaint is not real one, plaintiff has not properly valued the subject matter of suit and the very suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law? "

7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on assessment of oral submissions and documents placed by both the parties, the Trial Court answered the aforesaid point in the affirmative and allowed I.A.No.2/2025 filed by defendant No.15 and rejected the plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action and that the suit was barred by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs preferred the instant appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Murthy K., for the plaintiffs/appellants, the learned counsel Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, for defendant No.14/respondent No.14 and learned counsel Sri Krishna B.R., for defendant No.15/respondent No.15.

9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion that there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the present suit and that the same was barred by law. It was contended that the earlier application I.A.No.3 filed by defendant No.14 seeking rejection of plaint was dismissed, against which, she approached this Court in CRP.No.129/2014, which was disposed of affirming the order of dismissal of the said IA. As such, the Trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order on I.A.No.2/2025 filed by the defendant No.15 which is contrary to the order passed in I.A.No.3 filed by the defendant No.14.

10. Further, it was contended that the Trial Court has failed to cons