A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if, on a meaningful reading of the plaint and documents annexed, it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

1. This Regular First Appeal is filed challenging the Order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-29) Mayo Hall, Bengaluru in Original Suit No.26376/2024, wherein the application filed by defendant No.1 was allowed and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. We have heard Shri. B.M Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri. M. Madan Gopal, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 and 3 and Shri. Raghavendra C, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.21.

3. The suit was filed seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties by metes and bounds, with allotment of 1/10th share to the plaintiff, to declare that any document in favour of defendant No.21 in respect of suit schedule 'B' property would not be binding on the plaintiff's share and to declare that the documents executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of third parties concerning suit Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties are not binding to the share of the plaintiff.

4. The plaint averments are as follows:-

The plaintiff is the daughter of Late Shri. P. Mohan Swamy, son of Late Shri. Puttarangaiah and defendants No.1 to 20 are his sons, daughters-in-law and grandchildren. The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 20 are the legal heirs of Late Shri. P. Mohan Swamy. During his lifetime, Late Shri. P. Mohan Swamy acquired certain properties under a registered Partition Deed. Upon his demise, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 20 succeeded to his estate comprising suit Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties.

Defendants No.1 to 3, by falsely representing themselves as the only surviving legal heirs of Late P. Mohan Swamy, have created documents and third party interests in respect of the suit schedule properties with the intention of depriving the plaintiff of her lawful share. Portions of the suit Schedule 'B' property were dealt with in favour of defendant No.16, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff and neither defendants No.4 to 15 nor the plaintiff are signatories to such transactions.

Though, the revenue records stand in the names of defendants No.1 to 3, they have illegally transferred portions of the suit Schedule properties. The plaintiff has an equal proportionate undivided right, title and interest in the suit Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties by virtue of succession and inheritance. Accordingly, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 20 are co-owners and are deemed to be in joint possession of the suit schedule properties.

A Joint Development Agreement has been entered into with Defendant No.21 in respect of suit Schedule 'B' property, allegedly with the object of defeating the lawful rights and share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. When the plaintiff demanded partition, defendants No.1 to 20 made all efforts to alienate the suit Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties.

5. Defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it discloses no cause of action and that the suit is barred by law. It was contended that the suit has been instituted with a mala fide intention to deprive defendants No.1 to 3 of their lawful rights over suit schedule properties and to defeat the decree passed in O.S.No.1719/1997. The suit is based on misrepresentation, suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and does not disclose any cause of action. The claim