This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and

decree dated 13.01.2021 passed in O.S.No.8098/2018 on the file

of XX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the

application I.A.No.3 filed by respondents 2 to 5 – defendants 2 to 5

- 3 -

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint was

allowed by the trial court, pursuant to which, the suit filed by the

appellant – plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the appellant –

plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction and for

other reliefs against the respondents – defendants in relation to the

suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been

contested by the respondents – defendants, defendants 2 to 5 filed

the instant I.A.No.3 seeking rejection of the plaint inter alia

contending that the same does not disclose the cause of action.

The said application having been opposed by the appellant –

plaintiff, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order

allowing I.A.No.3 and consequently, rejecting the plaint and

dismissing the suit, aggrieved by which, the appellant is before this

Court by way of the present appeal.

4. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be

necessary to extract the plaint averments, bearing in mind the well

- 4 -

settled position of law that for the purpose of considering the

application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is only the plaint

averments and the documents produced by the plaintiff without any

addition or subtraction that can be looked into by the Court. It is

equally well settled that for the purpose of considering such

application, neither the contentions of the defendants urged under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC nor the documents relied upon by the

defendants can be looked into and no extraneous material or

contentions can be taken into account for the purpose of

adjudication of such application.

5. The plaint filed under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC reads as

under;-

The Plaintiff above named most respectfully submits

as under:

1. The addresses of the parties for the purpose of

service of court notice, summons, etc., are as shown as the

cause title supra. The address of the Plaintiff is also that of

his Counsel Sri.S.V.Giridhar, (svg@gridandco.in), Giridhar &

Co., Advocates, # 101, Janak Residency, # 2, Kumara Krupa

Road, Bangalore – 560 001.

2. The Plaintiff submits that one N. Krishna Murthy

was the sole and absolute owner of the lands in Survey No.4

of Chikka Bettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore

- 5 -

North Taluk, totally measuring in an extent of 9 Acres 10

Guntas. The said N. Krishna Murthy sold the five distinct

portions of the land in Survey No.4, which portions are

adjacent to each other vide Deed of Sale as detailed

hereunder:

(a) Deed of Sale executed by N. Krishna Murthy on

05.12.1979 in an extent of 4.4 Guntas in favour of

Dr.V.S.Malur duly registered as Document No.4333/1979-80

of Book I, Volume 3165 at Pages 6 to 8 in the Office of the

Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. The said Deed of

Sale is produced herewith as at Document No.1.

(b) Deed of Sale executed by N. Krishna Murthy on

05.12.1979 in an extent of 2.2 Guntas in favour of

Smt.Maithili duly registered as Document No.4334/1979-80

of Book I, Volume 3166 at Pages 5 to 6 in the Office of the

Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. The said Deed of

Sale is produced herewith as at Document No.2.

(c) Deed of Sale executed by N. Krishna Murthy on

05.12.1979 in an extent of 2.2 Guntas in favour of G.Krishna

Murthy duly registered as Document No.4335/1979-80 of

Book I, Volume 3167 at Pages 46 to 48 in the Office of the

Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. The said Deed of

Sale is produced herewith as at Document No.3.

(d) Deed of Sale executed by N. Krishna Murthy on

05.12.1979 in an extent of 2.2 Guntas in favour of Smt. P

Nalini du