IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 174 OF 2023 (IO)

BETWEEN:

SMT.SHASHIKALA W/O LATE K SEETHARAMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NO.691, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI.DURGESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SWAMY.M.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT SANDHYA B.S., W/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA, Digitally AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, signed by OCC: BUSINESS, MALATESH R/O NO.691, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, K C P.J.EXTENSION, Location:

DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

HIGH COURT OF

2. KUM.ANANYA KARNATAKA D/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O NO.691, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA B R., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2023 PASSED ON I.A.No.IV IN O.S. No.322/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING I.A.No.IV FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Durgesh Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Prasanna.B.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Defendant in O.S.No.322 of 2022 is the revision petitioner challenging the rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC by order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. (Sr.Dn.,), Davanagere.

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

A suit came to be filed with the following prayer in respect of the following property:

a. For partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 1/3^rd share each in suit schedule properties by virtue of testamentary document i.e., Will dated 24.02.2022 executed by deceased Sri.Seetharam.

b. Consequently restrain the defendant, her brother, agents or anybody claiming under her from dispossessing/ hosting these plaintiffs from the schedule property by means of permanent injunction decree.

c. Consequently restrain the defendant, her brother, agents or anybody claiming under her from alienating or encumbering the schedule properties to anybody in any manner by means of permanent injunction decree.

d. For the court cost and such other relief deems fit under the circumstance of the case.

SCHEDULE

1. A house property comprising of shop premises, bearing its # No.691, measuring 55 X 40 feet, situated at 8^th Main, P.J.Extension, Davanagere bounded as hereunder:

East : Road West : Conservancy Road North : property belongs to Halavagalu Basappa South : property belongs to Sri.Manjunath.S.Revankar

2. The Stock and Business in the firm running in the name and style of "Associated Business Corporation", situated at commercial premises standing in the name of Smt. Nagamani and the Stock and Business in the firm running in the name of Style of "Seetharam Associates", situated at the commercial premises standing in the name of Smt.Sandhya.

3. A business in the name of "Sri.Sastha Enterprise" at No. 14/B,JMG Lane, M. P. Road Cross, Bangalore-560002.

4. Suit was contested by the defendants by contending that the alleged Will dated 24.02.2022 is shrouded with suspicion and therefore, the plaint is to be rejected.

5. An application also came to be filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint on the similar grounds that was raised in the written statement.

6. The application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing detailed written objections offering the explanation parawise to the affidavit in support of the said application.

7. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing the parties, by impugned order rejected the said application, interalia holding in paragraphs Nos.18 and 19 as under:

"18. The learned counsel for the defendant pointed towards several facts in the alleged Will and contended that the alleged Will