ORAL ORDER

The petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, wherein, the application filed by the defendant No.6 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) & (d) of CPC came to be rejected.

2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition and possession of their legitimate share in the suit schedule item No.1 property. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs who are the daughters of the late Kappanna, and during his lifetime he conveyed the suit schedule item No.1 property to the defendant No.6 by executing the registered sale deed dated 2.12.1988.

3. The defendant No. 6, upon entering appearance, filed an application asserting that the suit schedule item No. 1 property, which was conveyed to defendant No. 6 by the father of the plaintiffs, is protected under the provisions of Section 6 of the relevant Act (likely the Partition Act or another property-related statute). The defendant further contended that items No. 2 and 3 of the suit schedule pertain to a partition by metes and bounds, which took place between the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 5, as per an unregistered partition deed dated 9th October 2014. Following the partition and sale, the plaintiffs’ names were duly mutated in the revenue records to reflect the shares allotted to them under the partition deed.

4. Suppressing the partition deed executed in the year 2014, the suit was filed and the same is malicious and vexatious. Therefore, the plaint requires to be rejected. 5. The Trial Court after considering the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, passed an impugned order which prompted the petitioner-defendant No.6 to file the present petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the plaint.

7. Perusal of the plaint indicated that the suit schedule property originally belongs to one Doddamuniga who is the grand father of the plaintiff and he died leaving behind two children Kariyappa and Kappanna. The 1st son of Doddamugina i.e., Kariyappa is no more. The plaintiffs claims to be the legal representatives of the deceased Kariyappa who is the son of Dodda Muniga, the propositor. It is further averred that, the deceased sons Kariyappa and Kappanna executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.6 dated 2.12.1988 conveying item No.1 property in the suit schedule property. Plaintiff further averred that Item No.2 and 3 suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and therefore, they are entitled for their legitimate share in the said item Nos.2 and 3 schedule properties.

8. Defendant No.6, along with the application, produced a copy of the partition deed dated 9.10.2014, by which Item Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit schedule properties were partitioned by metes and bounds. Under this partition, the plaintiffs were allotted their respective shares, and their names were entered into the revenue records, as confirmed by the order dated 15.10.2014 at Annexure-G, issued by the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk. By suppressing the material fact that they had already been allotted shares in Item Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and another reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 at para 5 has held as follows:

"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentently resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever