IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 75 OF 2023 (IO)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M PURUSHOTHAM S/O LATE SRI MUNIYAPPA @ ABHAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A 1649, 2ND CROSS, KAMASKHAMMA LAYOUT YELAHANKA TOWN BENGALURU - 560 064.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEENKUMAR HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. LOKESHNAIK S/O LATE SRI CHANDRA NAIK Digitally signed by AGED 38 YEARS SHARADAVANI B R/A MELINANAYAKARANDAHALLI VILLAGE Location: High ANTHARAHALLI POST Court of Karnataka THUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203.

2. SMT. SHANTHI BAI W/O LATE SRI CHANDRA NAIK AGED 58 YEARS R/A MELINANAYAKARANDAHALLI VILLAGE ANTHARAHALLI POST THUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203.

3. SMT. ANANDA BAI W/O NARASIMHA NAIK AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A NO.49, THIBBEGIWADANADADDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HARISANDRA POST RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 128.

4. SRI. RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE SRI V KRISHNAPPA AGED 51 YEARS R/A MELINANAYAKARANDAHALLI VILLAGE ANTHARAHALLI POST THUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURTHY NAYAK B.L, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

VIDE ORDER DATED 08.02.2023, NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2022 PASSED ON I.A. IN OS.NO.336/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA. REJECTING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (d) 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.Praveen Kumar Hiremath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Murthy Nayak B. L., learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Purchaser of one of the suit items of the properties who is arraigned as defendant No.4 in O.S.No.336/2018 filed the written statement and Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC application before the Trial Court for rejection of the plaint.

3. Said application was contested and was rejected by the Trial Court.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.4 is before this Court, in this revision petition.

5. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

5.1. A suit for partition and separate possession came to be filed by respondent No.1 against four defendants with the following prayer in respect of following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as suit properties):

“WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays before this Hon'ble Court to be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff, as against the defendants by granting the following relief:-

A) To effect partition in suit schedule property taking into consideration its location, divide and allotting 1/3rd share and to put the plaintiff in separate possession in his said 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and forwarded preliminary decree for effecting partition by the metes and bounds in terms of preliminary decree. In the event the defendants fail to comply with the direction of this Hon'ble Court it is further pray that this Hon'ble Court shall effect partition by metes and bounds and part with plaintiff 1/3rd share of the schedule properties and put him to separate possession of the same.

B) To declare that two sale deeds executed by the Chandra Naik in favour of K. Ramamurthy on 16/06/1998, in vide registered Document No.734/98-99 and 10/09/1998, in vide registered Document No.1586/98-99, sale deed executed by the K. Ramamurthy in favour of Supriya (Supriya steels) on 27/12/2002, in vide registered Document No.3015/02-03, the sale deed executed by Supriya (Supriya steels) in favour of M. Purushotham on 01- 07-2011, in vide document No.2294/11-12, in respect of the suit schedule properties, are not binding on the plaintiff 1/3rd share.

C) To grant and further hold an enquiry for means profit and pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court d