Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Anu Sivaraman, Rajesh Rai K.
Sheshachala, S/O Late P.V.Nirmal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Girijamma, W/O Late. P.V. Nirmal Kumar – Respondent
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
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.
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....
A plaint cannot be rejected without a thorough examination of its cause of action, which must be assessed through a full trial.
The right to seek partition is a recurring cause of action, and a fresh suit is not barred by the dismissal of a previous suit for non-prosecution under CPC.
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.
Rejection of plaint – A plaint lacking cause of action cannot proceed further.
A plaint must disclose a clear cause of action; contradictory claims regarding ownership undermine the right to sue, leading to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
In partition suits, assumption of constructive notice from the execution of registered Sale Deeds establishes the basis for determining rightful ownership and entitlements, which must be initiated wi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
