The court found the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint, emphasizing the need for a full examination of the ownership claims rather than dismissing based on presumptive documents.

JUDGMENT :

S. R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.No.519/2015 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.XVI and consequent judgment and decree dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, whereby the said application filed by the respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was allowed by the trial court, which rejected the plaint and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranks before the trial court.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents – defendants for declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule immovable property and that the sale deed dated 28.11.2014 executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of 2^nd defendant on the basis of an alleged power of attorney is void and sham document created by defendants by impersonation and not binding upon the plaintiff and for permanent injunction and other reliefs.

5. The defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance through their counsel and in addition to filing their written statement, also filed the instant application I.A.No.XVI under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same did not disclose any cause of action and was barred by law. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiff, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the plaint and consequently, dismissing the suit by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which is assailed in the present appeal.

6. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the trial court committed an error in passing the impugned order rejecting the plaint and consequently, dismissing the suit?

7. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the plaint averments , which reads as under:-

“UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 1 OF Code of Civil Procedure

The Plaintiff above named submits as follows:-

1. The addresses of the parties for the purposes of issue of summons, process, etc., are as stated in the cause title above. The Plaintiff may also be served through his counsel Sri. Govinde Gowda, Advocate No. 19, Matha Pithru Nivas, Near Padma Tent House, 1^st Cross, Amruthahalli, Sahakaranagar (P), Bangalore-560092.

2. It is submitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the agricultural land bearing Old Sy. No. 94, New Sy. No. 116 measuring 3 acres 18 guntas situated at Hegganahalli Village, Kundana Hobli Devanahalli Taluk which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder and herein after called as the Schedule property. The plaintiff acquired the schedule property through the grant. Dated 04.07.1998. The Plaintiff was cultivating the schedule property even earlier to the grant and from the very date of the grant the Plaintiff was allowed and continued and permitted to continue in actual possession of the schedules of the schedule property the mutation was also accepted in the name of the Plaintiff and the name of the plaintiff has been entered in the Revenue records. Evidencing the said fact the copies of the grant certificate dated 04.07.1998, mutation register extract, RTC extracts and the tax paid receipts are produced herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. Thus the afore stated documents clearly establish the right, title, interest, and possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property.

3. It is submitted that the father of the 1^st Defendant by name Sonnappa i