The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC requires the court to consider only the averments in the plaint; it cannot decide mixed questions of fact and law, such as the status of family property or limitation, without a full-fledged trial.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs in O.S No.2664/2023 have filed this appeal challenging an Order dated 12.01.2026 passed on I.A. No.II/2025 by the C/C XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by which the plaint was rejected in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs while the respondents herein were the defendants.

The suit in O.S No.2664/2023 was filed for partition and separate possession of one sixth share out of one fourth share in the suit schedule property. The suit property is land bearing Sy. Nos.6/1 and 6/2 situate at Dasarahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 05 Acres 02 guntas.

4 (i). The plaintiffs claimed that their grandfather, namely Mr.B. Munivenkatappa, was the absolute owner of the land in Survey Nos.6/1 and 6/2 situate at Dasarahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, he having purchased it in terms of two sale deeds dated 17.02.1937 and 20.12.1937. Out of the aforesaid extent, 01 Acre 02 guntas of land was acquired for the purpose of formation of a road by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (CITB). Therefore, what remained in the aforesaid land in Sy. Nos.6/1 and 6/2 was 05 Acres 02 guntas, which is the suit schedule property. They claimed that their grandfather had 5 sons. During his lifetime, he had started the business of sale of kerb and monumental stones under the name and style "Narayanswamy and Sons". In the year 1953, the plaintiffs' grandfather conveyed the suit schedule property in favour of the Partnership Firm - M/s. Narayanswamy and Sons, which then consisted of him (Mr. B. Munivenkatappa) and his five children as Partners. They claimed that therefore, all the assets of the Firm belonged to the joint family. The plaintiffs also claimed that in view of the deed of conveyance dated 30.09.1953, the Partnership Firm was a "Hindu Undivided Family Firm", which consisted of their grandfather and his sons. They claimed that the Firm suffered severe losses and was unable to carry on business. Hence, it decided to sell the suit schedule property to M/s.Reva Jeethu Builders and Developers. After obtaining necessary permissions from the State Government, a sale deed was executed in favour of M/s.Reva Jeethu Builders and Developers.

(ii) The validity of the permission granted by the State Government was questioned before this Court in W.P.Nos.8546-8548/1987, which culminated in an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 30.03.1993, which invalidated the permission granted by the State Government and consequently held the sale deed dated 30.09.1987 executed in favour of M/s. Reva Jeethu Builders and Developers as null and void. They claimed that M/s. Reva Jeethu Builders and Developers then filed O.S.No.2265/1996 for recovery of the consideration amount paid to the partners of the firm. They alleged that all documents of title of the suit property are in the custody of M/s. Reva Jeethu Builders and Developers. They claimed that the firm ran into rough weather and was unable to do business. They alleged that the fact that the firm belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) was already established in a suit and that the same had attained finality.

(iii) The plaintiffs claimed that after the death of their grandfather - Mr. B. Munivenkatappa, his four sons namely, Mr. B.M. Govindaswamy, Mr. B.M. Srinivas Murthy, Mr. B.M. Narayan Swamy and Mr. B.M. Lakshman Murthy, became the joint owners of the suit schedule property. They further contended that their father - Mr. B.M. Govindaswamy died on 11.01.1987 leaving behind the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.4 and 5 and Mr. G. Anantha Swamy (father of defendant Nos.1 to 3). The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of decea