IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI M NAGARAJA REDDY S/O LATE A MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1089

12^TH MAIN INDIRANAGAR, HAL 2^ND STAGE BANGALORE – 560 038.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.S. DWARAKANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ARCHANA.K.M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M/S JAIN HEIGHTS AND STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 SOLUS FLOOR 11 NO 2, 1^ST A CROSS J.C ROAD, OPPOSITE TO POORNIMA THEATRE BANGALORE – 560 027.

Digitally REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING signed by DIRECTOR - MR KISHOE KUMAR.

CHANDANA B M

2. SRI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY Location:

S/O LATE S MUSALA REDDY High Court of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 1-1-719/2 AND 3 NEAR NARMADA HOSPITAL, GANDHINAGAR HYDERABAD – 500 080.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR R S.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. ANJANEYA.A.B, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.01.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.V IN OS No. 328/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, ALLOWING THE IA NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS APPEAL IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 02.12.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.No.328/2020 is directed against the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed on I.A.No.V by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur, whereby the said application filed by the respondent No.2 – defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed by the Trial Court, which proceeded to reject the plaint and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff against the respondents –

defendants.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their respective ranks in the suit before the Trial Court.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the appellant - plaintiff instituted the aforesaid against the respondents – defendant Nos.1 and 2 for declaration that the Sale Deed dated

27.05.2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule property is invalid and void and consequential permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties and for other reliefs. In the said suit, in addition to entering appearing and filing written statement, the defendant No.2 filed the instant application – I.A.No.V under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same did not disclose any cause of action and that it was barred by law and not maintainable and was liable to be rejected. The said application – I.A.No.V having been opposed / contested by the plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I.A.No.V, thereby rejecting the plaint and consequently, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff, who is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

5. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal:

(i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff and consequently dismissing the suit ?

(ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal?

Re-Point Nos. 1 and 2:

6. Since both the points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for consideration.

7. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract the plaint averments are as under:-

MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE The plaintiff begs to submit to follows:

1. The address