Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. SRISHANANDA
H. Anjanappa, S/O. Late. Chikka Hanumaiah – Appellant
Versus
Chikka Muniyappa, S/O. Late.Hanumanthaiah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership claim derived from partition and historical rights. (Para 3) |
| 2. defendant's challenge based on prior partitions and ownership claims. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and procedural correctness. (Para 9 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. conclusion dismissing the revision petition. (Para 21) |
ORDER :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri.Prakash S. Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Ravishankar S., learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1. Notice to other respondents is dispensed as they are the co-defendants.
2. Defendant No.1 is the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 27.09.2025 passed in O.S. No.99/2023 in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short).
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
3.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.99/2023 with the following prayer in respect of the following property:
"PRAYER
Wherefore, the plaintiff pray that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass judgment an ddecree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants for the following
A plaintiff asserting ownership based on historical rights and alleged partition must be permitted to pursue relief through trial when faced with disputed claims and questions of fact.
A plaintiff's failure to seek explicit title declaration does not render the suit unmaintainable if sufficient evidence of ownership exists, especially when the trial is ongoing.
Point of law: Rejection of plaint - Clever or ingenious drafting cannot mask the Court for consideration of am application seeking rejection of the plaint when the suit is barred by limitation on the....
(1) Plaint which is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation, ought to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.(2) Rejection of plaint – While ....
The main legal point established is that a suit can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if it is time-barred, lacks a cause of action, or seeks to reopen a valid previous partition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues, and decision in the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of Orde....
A partition suit can proceed if the plaint discloses a cause of action, and issues of limitation and court fees will be determined at trial.
The judgment establishes the principle that the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC is limited to the irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction, and doe....
The court emphasized that the present suit does not hit Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and there is a cause of action to file the present suit.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
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
