Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.Srishananda
V.Ramesh, S/o B. Veerabhadraiah – Appellant
Versus
Krishnappa, S/o Late Bheemaiah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V Srishananda, J.
Heard Sri.B.K.Manjunath, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Defendant No.2 is the appellant in this second appeal challenging the order of the First Appellate Court passed in RA No.42/2024 whereby the rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.62/2015 is set aside and matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under :
A suit for partition came to be filed by respondent No.7 in respect of the following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as suit properties):
1. Property situated at Kuppur village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, in Sy.No.12/1A2 to the total extent of land 2-29 guntas and bounded on the:
| Direction | Description |
|---|---|
| EAST | Land belongs to Giriyappa, Muddaiah |
| WEST | Rayagaluve and road |
| NORTH | Land belongs to Puttaiah + Nagaraju |
| SOUTH | Land belongs to Dasappa |
2. Land situated at Kuppur village, kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, to the extent of 02-02 guntas in S.No.8/2 and bounded on the:
| Direction | Land Ownership |
|---|---|
| EAST | Giriyappa and Kamalamma |
| WEST | Rayagaluve |
| NORTH | Anjinappa and Chikkamma |
| SOUTH | Nandeeshaiah |
3. Land situated at Kuppur village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, to
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 discussed the scope of rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C and referred to legal precedents to determine the cause of action and the limited scope of rejection under the rule.
Rejection of plaint – Scope of petition is very limited and entire averments in plaint are to be considered, but not one sentence in plaint.
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.
A partition suit cannot have its plaint rejected at the initial stage based on claims regarding property ownership or the sufficiency of included documents; such matters must be determined at trial.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
