THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.04.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2026 IN O.S.NO.26080/2013 ON THE FILE OF LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU., REJECTING THE IA NO.1/2026 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.1/2026 in O.S.No.26080/2013 dated 06.04.2026 passed by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo hall, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court has rejected the IA No.1/2026 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, aggrieved thereby the petitioner/defendant No.3 is before this Court.

2. The respondents herein have filed a suit for declaration that the Sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiffs, for partition of the suit schedule property and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and also for a permanent injunction from demolishing the further remaining portion and also sought for an injunction from alienating the property. In the said suit, the petitioner herein has filed an IA under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.

3. It is stated that the suit is barred by law and the plaintiffs themselves have categorically pleaded that the suit schedule property was partitioned between defendant No.1 and his brother in the year 2003, under a registered Partition deed dated 06.06.2003 and in view of the same, the suit schedule property became the separate and self acquired property of defendant No.1. On that ground, the present suit for partition is not maintainable and does not survive for consideration. It is stated that the pursuant to the registered Partition deed dated 06.06.2003, the suit schedule property became the absolute and self acquired property of defendant No.1 and thereafter, defendant No.1 sold the property in favour of defendant No.2 and thereafter to defendant No.3. The present suit has been instituted only to harass defendant Nos.2 and 3, which is a clear abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the Apex Court, in case of Angadi Chandranna Vs. Shankar and others¹1 2025 SCC Online SC 877 has held that in Hindu Law, once partition occurred between the parties, each party get their separate and distinct share and that share becomes their self-acquired property and they have absolute right over the property. It is submitted that in the light of the said averments in the plaint, the plaint has to be rejected.

4. The trial Court by order impugned has rejected the IA that is filed by the defendant No.3. While rejecting the IA, the trial Court has observed that, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the plaint averments and the documents filed by the plaintiffs can alone be taken into consideration. The prayer made in the plaint shall have to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led in by the parties. Defendant No.3 has simply stated in the application that the plaint has to be rejected, but in affidavit, it is stated that the suit is barred by law as the suit schedule property has become the separate and self-acquired property of defendant No.1 as per the plaint averments. The trial Court observed that admittedly, in the plaint, though the plaintiffs stated that suit schedule property was given to the share of husband of plaintiff No.3 i.e., defendant No.1 in the family partition, but not at all admitted that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of the deceased defendant No.1. Further the trial Court observed that, in view of the specific plea of fraud and misrepresentation alleged by the plaintiffs against defendant No.1 at the time of execution of the Sale deed, the same has to be decided only after appreciating the oral