The Court upheld the dismissal of a plaint rejection application in a partition suit, affirming that substantial rights need adjudication, indicating that dismissals cannot be made on preliminary evaluations. The nature of the property as ancestral or individual is central to the trial.

ORDER :

V SRISHANANDA, J.

Sri B.J.Mahesh, learned counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is present. There is no possibility of amicable settlement having regard to the differences between the parties. Hence matter is taken up for consideration on merits.

2. Heard Sri C.M.Nagabushana, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Sri B.J.Mahesh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, Sri Raja.R, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7.

3. Defendant No.9 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in OS No.221/2013 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli.

4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

5. A suit in O.S No.221/2013 came to be filed with the following prayer in respect of following immovable properties (hereinafter referred as ‘suit properties’):

“Wherefore the plaintiffs above named most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass Judgment & Decree against the defendants:-

a) for the relief of partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' joint and legitimate 3/9^th share in the schedule properties;

b) for an enquiry into the future mesne profits;

c) to effect partition under Sec.54 of the CPC and to put the plaintiffs of their legitimate share in the schedule properties by metes and bounds;

d)for the relief of declaration to declare that the alleged partition dated 8.7.2004 entered into between the defendants 8 & 9 in respect of the schedule properties is not binding on the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs' share and also to declare further that the defendants 8 & 9 does not derive any right, title, interest or possession of any kind over the schedule properties based on the alleged partition deed dated 8.7.2004;

e) to declare that the alleged sale deed dated 4.8.2005 alleged to have been executed by the 9^th defendant in favour of 12^th defendant in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.3/5 measuring 1 Acre 15 Guntas situated at Begur village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk in favour of 12^th defendant is not binding on the plaintiffs or their share and also to declare further that the 12^th defendant does not derive any right, title, interest or possession of any kind over the said property based on the alleged sale deed dated 4.8.2005;

f) for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, GPA Holders or anybody acting on their behalf from alienating or encumbering the schedule properties in favour of third persons;

g) Pass such other suitable order/s deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case including the orders as to the costs of this suit, in the interest of justice.”

SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

1. All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.7/2 measuring 2 Acres 38 Guntas and bounded on the:-

2. All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.14/1 measuring 2 Acres 25 Guntas and bounded on the:

3. All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.no.3/5 measuring 1 Acre 15 Guntas and bounded on the: