Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.63 OF 2025 (IO)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI P.A.MANJUNATH

S/O S.APPAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

2. SMT. VANAJAKSHI

W/O SRI P.A.MANJUNATH

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

BOTH RESIDING AT NO.7

VARTHUR ROAD, NEAR BUS STOP

PANATHUR, BENGALURU EAST

BENGALURU – 560 103.

3. SMT. ASWINI P.M.,

D/O SRI P.A.MANJUNATH

W/O ANIL KUMAR B.M.,

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.10,

BUDIGERE ROAD

JALA HOBLI ,BEGATUR

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikram Huilgol, Murali N.
For the Respondents: G. Krishnamurthy, Muniraju K.

Courts must reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 if it discloses no cause of action or is barred by limitation. This power must be used to terminate vexatious litigation where 'clever drafting' attempts to resurrect long-extinguished, time-barred claims regarding settled property rights.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) - Rejection of plaint - Principles for exercising power - The court must conduct a meaningful, not formal, reading of the plaint to determine if it is manifestly vexatious, meritless, or discloses no clear right to sue - Clever drafting that creates an illusion of a cause of action or seeks to resurrect stale, time-barred claims through artful pleading must be nipped in the bud. (Paras 10.1, 10.2, 10.3)

(B) Limitation and Partition - Registered partition deed - Constructive notice - A registered partition deed serves as constructive notice of its content to all parties from the date of registration - Where rights have crystallized under a registered partition deed decades earlier, a suit for re-partition cannot be maintained by suppressing the existence of said deed, as it is barred by limitation and lacks a valid cause of action. (Paras 7, 9, 12, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an order rejecting their application to dismiss a suit for partition. The suit sought to reopen a partition settled by a registered deed twenty years prior, to which the predecessor of the plaintiffs was a signatory. The plaintiffs alleged fraud, claimed ignorance of the registered deed until the filing of the written statement, and sought to divide property that had been in the exclusive possession of the defendants for two decades.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the suit to be a classic case of clever drafting aimed at creating an illusory cause of action. Given the existence of a twenty-year-old registered partition deed, the plea of ignorance was implausible. The court held that judicial process cannot be a refuge for claims long extinguished in law and that the trial court failed to exercise its duty under Order VII Rule 11 to reject a plaint that is ex-facie barred by limitation.

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, and whether the suit for partition is maintainable despite the existence of a long-standing registered partition deed.

Ratio Decidendi: A court is empowered to pierce the veil of pleadings to identify and reject vexatious, meritless suits or those barred by limitation at the threshold, particularly where claims attempt to unsettle rights established by decades-old registered documents which are essentially undisputed.

Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed; Order of the trial court set aside; Plaint rejected.

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioners/defendants are before this Court calling in question an order dated 16-01-2025 passed in O.S.No.25803 of 2024 by the LXXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru whereby an application I.A.No.III filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint comes to be rejected.

2. Heard Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri G. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

Petitioners 5 in number are defendants 1 to 5 and respondents 3 in number are plaintiffs 1 to 3. Defendant No.1/1st petitioner and P.A. Babu are the children among others of late Appaiah and Eramma. The properties of Appaiah and Eramma were divided between the members of the family by a registered partition deed dated 17-11-2004. P.A. Babu received a sum of ₹1,00,000/-

in lieu of his share in the Hindu undivided joint family properties. In the year 2006, 1st plaintiff and P.A. Babu got married. Babu died intestate. After the death of Babu, the plaintiffs demanded Hindu undivided joint family properties to be partitioned. Several disputes between the members of the family galore, which also led to registration of a FIR which comes to be stayed at the hands of this Court. After the said proceedings, the respondents/plaintiffs institute O.S.No.25803 of 2024 to restrain the petitioners from alienating or creating third party rights in the suit schedule properties. An interim order comes to be passed in the said suit. In terms of the interim order, walls of the properties were painted with the number of the suit. Defendants/petitioners then file their written statement in O.S.No.25803 of 2024 and also seek vacation of the interim order. During the subsistence of the said application, I.A.No.III is filed by the defendants seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC. The concerned Court hearing the parties to the lis, rejects the application I.A.No.III filed for rejection of the plaint. It is this rejection that has driven the defendants to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that O.S.No.25803 of 2024 is filed for partition of the properties which exclusively belong to the defendants in terms of the partition that took place in the year 2004 which is 20 years prior to the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs, according to the petitioners, do not have any locus to challenge the partition deed and seek partition through the subject suit as P. A. Babu through whom plaintiffs are now wanting to seek partition is a signatory to the registered partition deed dated 17-11-2004, which was executed two years prior to the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and P.A. Babu. He would, therefore, submit that permitting the suit again to be tried by the wife and children of P.A. Babu, without any right whatsoever, would become an abuse of process of law, as the property partitioned belonged to the defendants. It is un-understandable as to how the plaintiffs can now file a suit and seek division of the property of the defendants. He would submit that the concerned Court has mechanically rejected the application on the ground that it is purely mixed question of law and fact and the defence of the defendants cannot be looked into at that stage.

5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs would vehemently refute the submissions by contending that at the stage of examination of an application under Order VII Rule 11, the Court has to consider only the averments in the plaint and not the defence of the defendants. The plaint indicates clear cause of action. The cause of action is demand of share in the suit schedule properties. He would submit that partition can be reopened, if it is prima facie proved that i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28459

Courts must reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 if it discloses no cause of action or is barred by limitation. This power must be used to terminate vexatious litigation where 'clever drafting' attempts to resurrect long-extinguished, time-barred claims regarding settled property rights.

Cases Referred (5)