The High Court · 2025

Both No 7 ;rnd 8 are R_/o. flat No.20S, Sumadhur Soham A.partments, ECC Road, White Field, Bangalore- 560 066. The Federa Bank Limited,, IVarathahalli, Bangalore, M.Varun,, .S/o. H.Manjunath, Age 32 years, H.[/anjunath,. Age 62 years, Both No.10 and '1 1 are R/o_ Flat No.185, 12 A Cross, W.C Road, 2nd Stage, Mahala ksh m ipu ram, Bangalore-s60096 Ashish lvlenr:n,, S/o. Mambalikalathi Krishnakumar Menon, Ag e 43 years, R/o. -Meadows, flat No.R2, The Residence, 1st A Cross, Behind Sai i,4ika Kaggadasapura, CV Raman Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka_560 093. Annaluru Raghu Simha,, S/o. Brig AG Krishnaiah (retired), Ag,:46 years, Annaluru Naga Dhathri,, Wo. Annaluru Raghu Simha, Age 4i years, Both No.1!, and 14 Rl/o. Flat No.R3, The Residence, n.iA Cross, Eiehind Sai Mitra ltleadows, Kaggadasapura, CV Raman Nagai, Benga uru, Karnataka_ 560 093. M/s. PND FHL,, Lavelle Road Branch,3rd floor, prestige Emerald Lavelle Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560 001 Selvakumar" Venkatashalam,, S/o. D.Venkatachalam, Age 44 years, Ramya Devarajan,, Wo. Selvakumar Venkatachatam, Age 3g years, Both No.16 :rnd 1Z are Rio. Flat No.R4, The Residencel 1st li Cross, Behind Sai fulitra lvleadows, Kaggadasapura, CV Raman Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka-1i60 093. Cherukuru l_;akshmi Devamma- W/o. It/a ikarjuna Chary, Age Zg years, Sri f\rlallikarjuna Chary,, S/o B. papachar, Age 79 years'' Both No.1B ernd 19 are R/o Flat No. R5, The Residence, 1st A Cross, Behind Sai Mitra Meadows, Kaggadasapura, CV Raman Nag ar, aangatore, Karnataka-560093. Chamundi Winery and Distillery,, Situated at Sy No. t)211 and 9212, IVI/s Cholappanalralli Village, Bangalore Chinthamani Road, Hosakot" frfrt, Bangalore Rural District. Smt. Sharda S. Channabasappa,, W/o. late S. Channabas;appa, Age 60 years, R/o No.52, Siddeswara Nilaya, Sth Cross, 2nd lvlain, n.fvf.V ZnO Stage, Bangalore The Vijaya Biank,, Gandhi Bazar Branch, Head Office at No. 4112, M.G. Road, Bangalo.e-1 , Branch Office situated at Gandhi Bazar, Bangalore. Ir//s Arihant F:oundations and Housing Limited,, Having iegistered Office at New No 3, Old No. 2s, Ganap€thy Cotony arJ street,"Off rnotapn CoaJ, Teynampet, (lhennai-600018. Representei Ay its nuirrorised Sign;tory M;. Abhishek Lunawath. Mr. Karan Seth,, S/o pramod Kumar Seth, Age 42 yearc, R/o. Flat No. G_1, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkai C"otony,' yetananta New Town, Bangalore. Karnataka-560065. Smt T Niveditha,, W/o. S. Naray_ana, Age 36 years, Occ.. Housewife, R/o. Flat No G-:2, VUaya Homes, Hl-G A Seitor, n.O"jf.a, Cofory, yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka_S60065. The Bank of lndia,, yelahanka Branch, 1138 Mlc,.16th B Cross yelahanka New Town, Bangalore-560064. Having its head office u1 ptot ruo C-S, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East,-MumUai_+OOOSI . -C - _ . 27 28 29 30 31

32. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 - -Shankar,, Mrs. Bharati B.N.,, Wo IrIr. Muralidharan Nair, Age 51 Years, RJo Flal No. G- 3, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065. Ur. O.N. Nagabhushan,, S/o. Narayan Rao, Age 56 Years, Rl/o Flat No G-4, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065. fr/lr. S.e. Ranganath,, S/o. Mr. Gopalaiah' Age 56 years, Rl/o. Flat No. G-5, Vijaya HomeJ, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065. Mrs.-Kusuma Mangala, D. V, W/o. Gopal N, Age 42 Years' Rl/o- Flat No G-5, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town' Bangalore, Karnataka-560065. Mr. N. Gopal,, S/o. Narasimha Murthy, Age 45 years, Rl/o. FIat No. G-5' Vijaya Homes, l-ilG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065. The State Bank of lndia,, RACPC lll, Banswadi Branch, Office at RACPC lll,Maruthi [\ilansion,TM-422, 80 Feet Road' Banswadi, Bangalore-560043' Pushpalata Jayaramappa,, D/o. R.Jayaramappa, Age 60 years, Rl/o Flat No' G-6, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065 Kanlhana Jayaramappa,, D/o. R.Jayaramappa, Age 51 years, Rl/o Flat No' G-6, Vijaya Homes, HiG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065 S/o. S.subramanyam, Age 69 years, Fl/o' Flat No G-101, Mr. Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town' Bangalore, Karnataka-560065 Sri. B. Ganesh Achar,, S/o. late Basappa, Age 64 years' Smt. Sujatha K V,, W/o. Sri B. Ganesh Achar, Age 61 years' Both 36 and 37 are Ryo Flat No.102, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065 Dr. K.-Ni. Harish, S/o Narayanappa, Age 66 Years, Rl/o. Flat No 103' Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065. The Bank of Baroda,, Kolar Branch, Office at No 221, 1st Cross, Brahmin Street, Opp. KSRTC Bus Stand, Kolar-563101 Sri. Seshadri M.N,, S/o. M.N. Nagaraja Rao, Age 51 years, Rl/o Flat No 103, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town' Bangalore, Karnataka-560065 Ur. SiOanartn Singh,, S/o. Raj Narain Singh, Age 41 years, R/o Flat No'103' Vijaya Homes, H'iG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony' Yelahanka New Town' Bangatore, Karnataka-560065 Mrs. Rekha J.P,, W/o. Chaandrakumar C, Age 37 years, Mr. Chandra Kumar. C,, S/o. Chikkeerappa D, Age 45 years, Both 42 and 43 are R/o Ftat No.105, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka NewTown, Bangalore, Karnataka-560O65' Mallikirjun Allipur,, S/o. Mr. Siramappa Allipur, Age. 57 years, Fi/rc' Flat No.106, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065. 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 54 55 56 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Mrs. Yamini Nandini,, Wo. Dr. Murali lvlohan, Age 40 years, Ryo. Flat No.106, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065 Mr. G lV Harikumar,, S/o. late M. Muniswamappa, Age 45 yezrrs, Mrs. Nagavene Harikumar,, Wo. Mr. G. M Harikumjr, Age 44 years, Both 46 and 47 are No Flat No.202, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065 . Mrs. Cisy.laquiline,, Wo. Bruno A, Age 42 years, Mr. Bruno A,,, S/o. Albert A, Age 47 years, Both 48 and 49 are Rl/o Flat No.203, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065 IVr. R. Nagaraja Rao,, S/o. tate Rangappa, Age 69 years, Fl/o. Flat No.204, Vijaya Holes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony, yelahanka New Town, Bangalore l<arnataka-S60065. Sri. Rajesh Singh,, Sio_ Premnath Singh, Age 41 years, R/o. Flat No.204, Vijaya Hones, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Colony,' yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065 I\4r. Sunil Kumar D,, S/o. Mr. Dharanendraiah G. S, Age 35 years, Fl/o. Flat No.205, Vrjaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Col-lony, ielahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065. ltilr. S Govardhan Rao,, S/o. Late G. Shivaji Rao, Age 57 years, Rl/o. Flat No.206, V jaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar C=olony, yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-560065. Mr. Nagatrushan,, S/o. Sri. Radhakrishna T.S, Age S1 years, Rt/o. Flat No.301 Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar dolony, yelahanka New Town, Banqalore, Karnataka-560065. [\,4r- Dharmendra Singh,, Sio, Mr. Samarpal Singh, Age 37 years, Mrs. Vibhuti Sindhu,, Wo. Mr. Dharmendra Singh, nge 38 years, Both 55 and 56 are Rl,/o Flat No.302, Vijaya Homes, HtG A S.ctor, Ambedkar Colony, Ye,ahanka New Town, Bangaloie, Karnataka-560065 [ilr Ramsumesh Rangorth Menon,, S/o. C. Ramakrishnan, Age 49 years, Ryo.F1, D No. 725, 3 Cross, HRBR Layout, lBlock, Kjyan (agar, Bangalore-560043 Mr. Ramasr_ibramanian C,, S/o. It/r. A.lt/. Chandramouli, Age 4 i years, Mrs. Veena fl,, Wo. Mr. Ramasubramanian C, Age 37 years, Both 58 and 59 are R/o Flat No.3O3, Vijaya Homes, Hl'G A Se:ctor, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka_s60065. lvlr. Cha nnab,asavaraj M. Bevinamaiad,, S/o. Late M H. Bevinamarad, Age 52 y."?r: ryo. Flat_No.304, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambedkar Cjony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka_56006S. Mr. Ketan Nath Agarwal,, S/o. Late Mr R.L. Agarwal, Age 55 years, R/o Flat No.305, Vijaya Homes, HIG A Sector, Ambeidkar Col6ny, \lelahanka New Town, Bangalore, Karnataka-S60065. Shri Nepal Clandra Patari,, S/o. Late J. IVl. patari, Age 46 years, Smt. Suman Patari,, W/o. Mr. Nepal Chandra patari,-Age 46 ye,ars, Both 62 and 63 are R/o Flat No.3O6, Vijaya Homes, niG n Sector, Ambedkar Colony, Yelahanka New Town, Bangaloie, Karnataka_560065. M/s. Sai lvlitra Constructions,, Office at 192A, 3 A Main, 12th Cross, R.p.C. Layout, Vilayanagar 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560040. Rep by its rartners i. D Si. Ravi Sekhar ii. Mr. K.V.N. Bhaskar -, "nO '73 68 are FJo Flat No.202, Aster Block, Sai Mitra fi/eadows' August Mrs Ashika,, D/o. Sri R.C. Naidu, Age 40 years, Smt R. Mythili,, D/o. Sri S. Ramaniulu, Age 67 years' Botn OS anO OO are Ryo Flat No.2O1, Aster Block, Sai Mitra Meadows' August F"ir, no"a, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapura, Bangalore, Karnataka-560093' Mrs Reva Harisn,, W/o. Mr. Mahadevan Harish, Age 45 years' Mr. Mahadevan Harish,, S/o. Sri C K. Mahadevan, Age 46 years, gotn 6i purt no"O, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapura, Bangatore, Karnataka-560093' frrfir. fh"iuryr*i Kumar,, Wo.-Mr. S- Kumar, Age 42 years, Rl/o Flat No 203' niter etoc[, Sai Mitra Meadows, August Park Road, Nagavarapalya' Kaggadasapura, Bangalore, Karnataka-560093' UrJ Neeta V Dhawale,, W/o. Vijayakumar Dhawale, Age 59 years' Mr. Vijayakumar Dhawale,, S/o. Sameul B Dhawale, Age 63 years' eotit 7O and 71 are R/o No. 328 Old No 57, Flat No'202, Aster Block' Sai Mitra MeaOows, August Park Road, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapura' Bangalore, Karnataka-560093. "pra.oO Anant Murchite,, S/o. Sri Anant Dadasaheb Murchite' Age 43 Hrti. year", nlo Flat No.301, Aster Block, Sai Mitra Meadows, August Park Road' illagavarapalya, Kaggadasapura' Bangalore, Karnataka-560093' rrrri."Cnrni€ prar5in,, S/o. Sri Ramesh Chand, Age 41 years' Fl/o Flat No.30l,AsterBlock,saiMitraMeadows,AugustParkRoad,Nagavarapalya' Kaggadasapura, Bangalore, Karnataka-S60093' frlii."Sf,rif V' f"tchand'ani., Wo Mr. Chandra Prakesh Aged about 39 years' and 7 4 are Residents of Flat No.302, Aster Btock, sai lvlitra aoirl No" frrflrAo*.. August Park Road, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapurs Bengaluru' Karnataka-560093. frfr. H,fiJnru" prasad Koteshwara,, S/o Mr' Subramanya Mania K'' Aged +7 y""t", RUo Flat No.303, Aster Block, Sai Mitra lvleadows' August "Uori Frrf h.rO1 Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapurs Bengaluru Karnataka-560093' Mr. Rajeeva Sri-vastava, S/o Sri A L Srivastava Aged about 58 years' Utrs. Jayantni Srivastava,, W/o Mr. Raj eev Srivastay3 19"d about 54 years' Aotn tn6 Defendants Nos. 76 and 77 Are R/o Flat No 304' Aster Block' Sai Mitra Meado*s. August Park Road, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapurs' Bengaluru. Karnataka-s60093. frfi. Firsf'rntf,, K.A, S/o Sri Anant K.N, Aged about 45 years' Occ Not known io in" pirintit". R/o Flat No.403, Aster Block, Sai Mitra Meadows' August i'r;k R;;, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapurs Bengaluru Karnataka-560093' tUi. nninO xrrn'ar Venkaiachari S/o Sri S. A T. Venkatachari' Aged about-41 ;;;;", o;. N;ikno*n to the plaintiffs' R/o Flat No201' Balena Block' Sai iilitra- tvleadows. August paik Road, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapurs. Bengaluru, Karnataka-560093. M;. ft;;t;", h/urthy,' S/o Mr. A. Vasudeva Udupa' Aged about 82 years' Rl/o iirt t f o.zoZ, Balena Block, Sai Mitra Meadows August Park Road' Nigavarapalya, Kaggadasapurs. Bengaluru Kamataka-560093' fr,rilnrlhii li. H/lrrtEv,, S/o Mr. Naravana Murthy, Aged-about 50 years' F/o Fi"t r.ri.zoa, Balena Block, Sai Mitra Meadows August Park Road' Nitavarapatya, Kaggadasapurs. Bengaluru, Karnataka-560093 fufi]iunnjn Mohani[rishnan,, S/o lvlohanakrishnan, Aged about 52 years, Mrs. Vidya Kannan,, W/o Mohanakrishnan, Aged about 49 years' 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 97 98 Both the te,fendants Nos. 82 and 83 Rl/o Flat No.204, BalenzL Block, sai lvlitra Meadows. .August Park Road, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasa)urs. Bengaluru. Karnataka -fi60093. Mrs. Ajay.Iain,, S/o Shri Satya prakash Jain, Aged about 4Z years, Mrs. Puja .Jain,, Wo Ajay Jain, Aged about 42 years, Both the Defendants Nos. 84 and 85 R/o Flat No.205, Balena Block, Sai Mitra Meadows. August Park Road, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasaours. dengaluru. Karnataka,560093. Dr Said r\lavi Koya,, S/o K.T. Ahamed, Aged about 77 yeas, R/o Flat No.301, Balena Block, Sai Mitra Meadows. August park Road, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapurs. Bengaluru. Karnataka_560003. Ivlr. H. Balasubramani,, S/o Sri S. Hariharan,Aged about 47 yeas, R/o Flat No.302, Balena Block, Sai Mitra Meadows. August park Road, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapurs. Bengaluru. Karnataka_5600t)3. Mr. Jupesh Karayil Vayalambron,, S/o Mr.K. V. Krishnan, Aged about 4g years, Mr. Sneha llamdas,, Wo Mr. Jupesh Karayil Vayalambron Aged about 43 years, Both the Defendants Nos. 88 and 89 R/o Flat No.303, Balena Block, Sai It/itra lVleadows. August park Road, Nagavarapalya, l(aggadasapurs. Bengaluru. t larnataka-560093. Mr. Rupesh A.,, S/o Mr. A.Sankaraiah, Aged about 42 yearc RJo No.1001 A Block, Aishwarya Excellency, Opp Tin Faclory, K R puram, OtC lr,4adras Road, Bengaluru. Mr. Pydimnl Uma saimadhav,, S/o Sri pydimarri Venkata Satyanarayana, Aged about 44 years, It/r. Gontla Deepa,, Wo Mr. pydimrri Uma saimadhav, Aged about 3g years, Both the Defendants Nos. 91 and 92 R/o Flat No.305, balena Block, SaiMitra Meadows. August Park Road, Nagavarapalya, KaggadasapJrs. Bengaluru. Karnataka-560093. Mr. Prakash Binjola, , Sio Sri Gangaram Binjola, Aged about 46 years, Ryo Flat No.4C 1 , Balena Block, SaJ Mitra Meadoirs.August park Road, Nagavarapal ya, Kaggadasapurs. Bengaluru. Karnataka-56009 3. IVlr. Ranr KLrrnar Kultai,, S/o Kultai Rila Rao, Aged about 53 years, Rl/o Flat No.403, Balena Block, Sai Miha Meado'ws. August' park Road, N_agavarapal'7a, Kaggadasapurs. Bengaluru. Karnataka_56009i1. Mr. Amit Kuntar Nayak,, S/o Sri Rajkishore Nayak, Aged about 43 years, Mrs. Swagatika Biswal,, Wo Mr. Amit Kumai Nayai, Aged eLbout 43 years, Both the Defendants Nos. 95 and g6 are R/o Ftat-No.2Oi, Cameo Btoci, Sai .Meadows. August park Road, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapura. Mitra Bengaluru. Karnataka-560093. Mr. Praveen C.C,, S/o Late Sri. K.S Chandrasekhar, Aged about 44 years, Mrs. Maya l\4enon,, Wo Mr. praveen C.C, Aged about"43 years;, Both Nos. 97 and 98 are Ryo Flat No.202, Clmeo Block,'Sai tr4itra tr4eadows, A!^g^ust Parlt Road, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapura, Bengalr- ru, Karnataka_ 560093 Itrlrs Hanuman Reddy K,, S/o Sri Anji Reddy K, Aged about 44 years, Rl/o Flat No.203, Cameo Btock, Sai tr,iitra H,teaaois. Arlr.t park Road, Nagavarapa ya, Kaggadasapura, Bengaluru, Karnataka_56'009:l 100 101 102 103

104. 105 '106 107 108 109 110 111 112 ltJ 114 115 116 117 118 119 - - -s/o Mrs. Chinmaya Rajan Jena,, S/o Santosh Kumar Jena, Aged about 46 years' R/o Flat No.204, Cameo Block, Sai Mitra Meadows, August Park Road' Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapura, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560093' H,fi."Vir"r"t"N, v., W% vitvanthan S', Aged about 52 ye€rs' Ryo old No'159' r.r"* flo so, Singanna Street, Chindadripet, Chenni, Tamilnadu-600002' i;;. M;noj ffir; Pradhan,, S/o Trailokvanath Prad.han, Aged about 43 vears nrir. r.ii"n'iripi, Nayak,, Wo Mr. lrilanoj kumar Pradtan, Aged about 38 years' eoin th" Defendants Nos 102 and io3 are R/o Flat No 301' Cameo Block' Sai lvlitra Meadows, August Park Road, Nagavarapalya' Kaggadasapura, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560093. "Sart"i'Singh', S/o Mr. Joginder Singh, Aged- about 50 years' FI/o Flat M;. 'Crr-"o Block' sii Mitra Meadows, August Park Road' Uo.Soz, tl"giu;raputy", Kaggadasapura, Bengaluru' Karnataka-560093 ffrJ State'eank ot tnoia,, Local Head office at 65, St Marks Road' Bangalore- 560 00t- Branch Office at Specialised Housing Finance Branch' 26th Main Road, Jayanagar, lV T Block, Bangalore-560 041 ' Nagappa, age 59 years' Rl/o Flat fr4irtyrniiy, .Donkennanavar,, f.f o.aba,'Clr"o Block, Sai Mitra Meadows, August Park Road' V.C. Ravi,, S/o. V.A- Chandramouli, Age 43 years, V.A. Chandramouli,, S/o. late V.Arunachalam, Age 88 years' Aoth No.f Oz anA tde are Rio. Flat No 304, Cemeo Block' Sai Mitra Meadows' nutust earf Road, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapura' Bengaluru' Karnataka- 560 093. krn"f-e""r,, S/o. Tapan Prosad Basu, Age 53 years' R/o 002' Haudin House, 13 Haudin Road, Bangalore-560 005 Ashwini Kumar Sutar,, S/o. Nityanada Sutar, Age 44 yea$' Rashmi Routray,, W/o. Ashwin Kumar Sutar, Age 42 years' ll are Rl/o. Flat No.401, cemeo Block' sai Mika Meadows' A;th No.rro nrgrtfirtr Road, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapura' BenQaluru' Karnataka- 560 093. Prabhakaran R., S/o- Rajagopal M Age 39 years' Sravani K,, W/o. Prabhakaran R. Age 39 years' sotn No.i1z and 1 13 ,r" Ryo. trlpl az' +tn cross' 1St Main Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, CV Raman Nagar, Bangalore-S6-0-093' Surya J,, Wo. S.Satheesh Kumar, Age 28 years' S.Sitneesn Kumar,, S/o. Sabarinathan, Age 36 years' ail'N".ir a ,;J 1i5 are Rl/o. Ftat No.402, cemeo Btock, sai Mitra lvleadows, nugust eark Road, Nagavarapalya, Kaggadasapura' Bengaluru' Karnataka- 560 093. B.V, Reddy,, S/o. B.Veera Reddy, Age 50 years' B.Anasooryamma,, W/o. B.V. Reddy, Age 48 years' Both No.116 and 117 "t" Post, Hosur Main Road' Bangalore-560 O29 ' . . Balasubramani f,, Slo. Xrisil"na'pi' tfoor, fioti" lrf"nsibn, tOtn Cross, Wilson Garden' Bangalore f,rflr.' iA l;;", R;;d MadhaPur, HYderabad-500 081 ' iidffi;i; il;t, 11e ";; Registered- office at D.No.3-1049, Opp CGR lnternational 'No.51', sri swav Avyappa cooperative Housing societv' not necessary parties tott"::RL"JJ3"nl'JEllr. ilo. f'ro ii, krishna Nagar' lndustrial Layout' DRC Age 46 years' R/o' 17' 3d -Stttng"ti'n' -Mil"r,, ^ia lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. 469 of 2O22 before the Ld. ll ,\dditional Chief Judge, City Crvii C:ourt, Hyderabad till disposal of the Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VADEENDRA JOSHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI K.S. SUNEEL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI S. MALLA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER ( TIIE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K' SUJANA cI.L REVISIoN PETITION No'9Oo oF 2023 ORDER: This revision petition is hled challenging the order dated 28.O2.2O2g passed in IA'No 248 of 2023 in OS'No.469 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court' at Hyderabad, whereunder, the said I'A ' hled by the petitioners / defendant Nos'10 and 11 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 15 I of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') with a prayer to reject the plaint in O'S ' on the ground that a) the plaintiffs have no cause of action to bring suit against defendantsforpartitionofsuitproperties;b)suitisbarred under law ; c) the Court fee paid on the plaint being improper ; being frivolous, vexatious and meritless' and d) suit was dismissed The brief facts of the case are that OS No 469 of 2022 was 2. filed by respondent NOs'1 and 2/plaintiffs seeking partition of the suit schedule properties against Defendant Nos l to 3 who are family members of the plaintiffs' and the other defendants who purchased or acquired interest in the properties from 2 SKS,J t) CRP.N r.90O OF 2023 defendant Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiffs contend that the suit schedule properties are coparcenary properties, inhet.ited from their gr,:st-p,randfather, Mr.Rikkula Narasimha Reddy, who acquired th,: p16p..1i"" as an illatom son-in-law in yas,ojigudam Village. After his demise, the properties were partition()d among hrs three sons, and 1ater, B.Sidda Reddy, the father of <lefendant No.1, ora111- clivided the properties equally between his two sons. The plaintifl s, who are the daughters of defendant Nor;. 1 and 2 and sisters rtf defendant No.3, claim a share in the prolterties as coparccners.

3. Belbre the trial Court, the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs ha're no right or interest in the plaint schedule properties, and the suit is barred under larv. The :laintiffs, great-grar-rdfa ther, B.Narsimha Reddy, married Rikkula Siddava and went to her viilage, Yasojigudem, as an illatom son_in_law, acquiring no right or interest in his in-laws' proper,ies. The properties ck:volved on B.Sidda Reddy, B.Raji Reddy, and B.Rami Red,lv from their mother, Rikkula Siddava, rrfter her demise. The clefendant No. 1 and B.Narsimha Reddy succeeded to the properties of B.Sidda Reddy by way of succession, making 3 SKS,J CRP.No.gOO oF 2O23 them the exclusive and separate properties of the defendant No.1 and his brother'

4. The petitioners further submitted that the claim of petitioners over the properties is contrary to the recitals of the registered sale deeds, which state that the defendants Nos l to 3 purchased the properties with their own funds' Ailegedly' the piaintiffs made alienations of the properties purchased in their names, holding out as their true and real owners' The suit is also barred by limitation, as the registered sale deeds were executed long prior to the institution of the present suit' Additionally, the Court fee paid on the plaint is not proper' and the plaintiffs were never in joint possession of the suit property withthedefendants.Thepetitionersprayedthattheplaintbe rejected at the threshold, relieving the defendants of the burden of carrying frivolous, vexatious' and merit-less litigations'

5. Contrary to the above' a counter affidavit was filed by the respondents before the trial Court stating that the relief as sought for by the petitioners is not maintainable under law and facts, and was filed based on false and baseless allegations' It was contended that the suit is maintainable under Section 17 of CPC, as some of the immovable properties fall within the 6 SKS,J CRP.r-o 900 OF 2023

1956. He averred that the claim of piaintiffs as copa rceners is barred due to the partition of properties prior to the commencemcnt of the 2006 amendment to th e Hindu Succession Act, due to which the plaintilfs cannot claim coparcenan,r rights in the properties. Additionally, that the existence ol'a will by Defendant No.1, which excludes Plaintiffs from anlr share in the properties, and that the same supports the rejection of the suit.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner advanced his arguments with reg:rrd lo suit being barred by limitation, suit bei:rg barred under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act and insufficient ,lourt fees, contending that suit is liai>le to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. He ave rred that reading of 1.he plaint would reveal that it does not clisclose a cause of action, and is barred by law. The plaintilfs har-e cleverly avoidecl merLtioning the dates of death of famill. rnembers, creating an illusionary cause of action and that this orrission is significant a.si the same is essential to determine the devolution of the prolterties and the existence of a coparcenary. He divuiged thr: Plaintiffs have admitted that the suit schedule properties stand in the name of Defendant Nos. I to 3, but they 7 SKS,J CRP.No.90O OF 2023 Contendthatthesaidpropertiesarejointfamilyproperties.He asserted that the. Plaintiffs have not made any specific averments as to how and in what manner the HUF came to exist and continues to exist, and how each of the suit schedule properties forms part of the HUF, lamenting that in the absence of such pleadings, the suit is barred under Section 4(1) of the Benami Act. He incessantly contended that the Plaintiffs have admittedthattheexclusionoftheirright'ifany'fromthejoint family properties, if any, was at least 15 years prior to the date of filing of the suit. Article 1 10 of the Limitation Act provides thatasuitforenforcingarightinjointfamilypropertyoughtto be frled within 12 years from the date of exclusion' frle a fresh suit with better l0.Inadditiontotheabove,learnedcorrnselforpetitioners contended that the learned counsel for the Plain tiffs admitted pleadings in the suit were before the trial Court that the defective, and sought libertY to admission is tantamount to pleadings and that the said acknowledging that the suit is liab1e to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. In support ofthe said contentions' learned counsel for petitioners filed brief written submissions' citing several judgments rendered by the Honble Supreme Court which are 8 SKS,J CRIj No 900 OF 2023 srmilar to that of the case on hand. Therefore, prayed r,his Court to allov' t he present revision petition, setr,ing irside the impugned older as the suit being one without r:ause of action, barred by lirrr 6nd vexatious in nature.

11. Per con77., iearned counsel for respondent Nos.l and 2, respectivelv, opposed the submissions made by 1carne,1 counsel for petitionr:rs and {iled brief written arguments, citir.Lg several judgments rerndered by the Hon,bie Supreme Court, contending that the petition is based on false and baseless allega tions and that there ar,l no grounds for rejecting the plaint It was averred that all proF,erties in the suit schedule, except for three, are situated out:iide the jurisdiction of Hyderabad cit"\,, however, while placing reliance on Section 1 7 of CpC, it is j ust to note that the sarre allows the suit to be tried beforr: the Court as some of the. immovable properties fall within its jurisdiction. Further, the allegation that they have no cause of acticn to file the pres3nt suit was denied stating great-grandfather/B.Narsimha Reddy, acquired ri ghts or interest over 1.he property of his in-laws and that l.he res;pondent Nos. 1 an<l 2 purchased the same from the funds of tLLe Hindu Undividecl Iramily nucleus and that all propertirs5 1ys1s 9 5KJ,., CRP.No.900 OF 2023 purchased from the joint family income' They also contended that the suit is {iled within the period of limitation and that they have correctly paid the requisite Court fee' Therefore' while advocating that there are no illegalities or infirmities in the impugned order, prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petition as the same lacks merits'

12. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on golng through the material placed on record' it is noted that the primary contention of learned counsel for petitioner is with regard to Iack of cause of action stating that the subject properties are not joint famiiy properties and are not acquired from paternal side and that they are acquired from maternal side of B.Narsimha Reddy, whereas' while dealing with petition under Order VII RuIe 11 the Court has to consider oniy the plaint averments and as per plaint averments' the great grandfather of plaintiffs i'e , B'Narsimha Reddy got the properry from his in laws, as such, the properties are not acquired on paternal side, however, the properties acquired by B'Narsimha Reddydonotcomeinthemeaningofancestralpropertyaswell, as the property acquired from maternal family cannot be considered as ancestral property' When plaintiff referred to the 10 SKS,J CRP.N ).900 OF 2023 source liorn Rikkula Siddava, whether the propert ies come under coparcenaries or ancestral, cannot be decided in this petition. It. ;s; a disputed fact which requires aclj udical ion. Mere avermenr-s .Lle not sufficient to decide the said- aspcct. !-herefore, there is no illegalit5z in the finding of the trial Court on this aspect.

13. That apart, the second contention of learned counsel for petitioner is in relation to the plaint remaining silent with regard to date ol str,:cession of Siddava and Sidda Redd1, 21n6 the date of their dezLlh as well which would connote to be the core ingredicnt lirr determination of real cause of ac lion. Irrom the plaint averrtents it is seen that B.Narsimha Redcly went to Yesojigudem 'Village and got married and was blessed u ith three sons, by n.lrnes, B.Raji Reddy, B.Rami Reddy and B.Sidda Reddy. The defendant No.l is son of B.Sidda Reddv :Lnd after death of B.Narsimha Reddy, his property got portioncd oraily among these three sons, out of which the father of d,:fendant No.1 i.e., B.[],dda Reddy got share of property admeas,rring 54 acres in se,rr:ral survey numbers of yesojigudem Village of Yadagiriguttzr Mandal. Thereafter, the said B.Sidda ReCdy was blessed u'ith two sons i.e., defendant No.1 and B.Narsimha 11 SKS,J CRP.No.900 OF 2023 Reddy. On perusing ali the averments of the plaint' there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and also the death of Siddava and Sidda Reddy' non mentioning of date of death is not a ground to reject the plaint The trial court while adjudicating the matter will consider the said aspects' therefore, there is no force in the said contention'

14. Further, the learned counsel for petitioners had speci{icaliy contended that the suit is barred by limitation' citing Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. That being so, it is pertinent to note that the said Section states that a person is deemed to have notice of a transaction involving the sale of immovable property if ttre transaction is affected by a registered in actr-rai Possession of the instrument, or if the Person ls though the learned counsel property. In the case on hand' contended that the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit within three years from the date of registration of the sale deeds in the name of the other Defendants' it is relevant to note that it is well-established that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law' Therefore' unless the suit claim is patently barred by limitation' the plaint cannot be rejected' t2 SKS,J cRIr.Nr 900 ()F 2023 i-,

15. At this juncture, it is relevant to note thrrt in lRaptakos Brett and Company Limited Vs. Ganesh propertyl the Hon'bie Supreme Court held that the question u.hr:ther the plaint disclos;ed a cause of action or not should be dc termined on the basisi of averments made in the plaint and nothing else. In the case oi Roop Lal Vs. Nacchattar Singh Gill2, it was held that for tletr:r:mining whether the plaint discloses the cause of action or r-r()l , averments in the plaint alone are rele,,zant and material.

76. Furthrrr.more, in Liverpool and London Sp and I Association tr imited Vs. V. Sea Success 13, hek:l that whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact, but whether it does or does not nust lte found out from reitCing the plaint itself. For the saicl purl>ose the avermentsi rr zrde in the plaint in their entirety must bt, held to be corrccl. 'lLLe test is as to whether if the avernrcnts made in the plaint a:'t: taken to be correct in their entirety, rr decree would be passed. In ascertaining whether the ptaint r;hows a cause of actirrn, the Court is not required to make an elaborate enquiry into dcubtful or complicated questions of law or fact. By 1 2 1998 7 sCC 184 7982 3 SCC 4)7 2004 9 SCC sr 2 13 SKS,J CRP.No.gOO OF 2023 the statue the jurisdiction of the Court is restricted to ascertaining whether on the allegations a cause of action is shown. So long as the claim discloses some cause of action or raises some questions ht to be decide by a Judge' the mere fact that the case is weak and' nor likely to succeed is not ground for striking it out. The purported failure of the pleadings to discloses a cause of action is distinct from the absence of ful1 particulars. It may be true that Order VII Rule 11(a) although authorizes the Court to reject a plaint on failure on the part of the plaintiff to disclose a cause of action but the same would not mean that the averments made therein'ofa document upon whichreliancehasbeenpiacedalthoughdisclosesacauseof action, the plaint would be rejected on the ground that such averments are not sufhcient to prove the facts stated therein for the purpose of obtaining relief in the suit'

17. That apart, with regard to the sufhciency or insufhciency of Court fees paid, this Court observes that when compr-rting Court fees, the primary consideration must be the recitals in the plaint. In other words, the Court shall focus solely on the averments and allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint' without taking into account aly external factors or evidence' At t4 SKS,J CIRP N ).900 OF 2023 the rnitial stage of proceedings, the primary concern of the Court slrall tre to determine whether the plaintiff had paid the requisite Cc,urt fee based on the averments macie in t ee plaint. Furthermor--, it is imperative to note that the Cour1. has the discretiotr tc re-examine the Court fee at any staElc of the proceedings, and shall take into consideration the new circumstanc.e:s that would arise or additional facts to ntay come into light . T'he said power is conferred upon the Coltrt under Section , 1 of the Act, which enables the Court to clirect the payment of lhe proper Court fee if it determines that t he initial fee paid u zrs insufficient. However, this is a s:condary consideration that can be addressed at a later stage of the proceedings, i.e., during the course of trial. In thr: pres,lnt q25g, thc trial Court has rightly observed that the primary concern u.ould bc ro determine whether the plaint has been properly presented ar)(l u,hether the requisite Court fee has bcen paid and the trial rlourt had specifically held that the Court fee paid is sufhcier.rt. 18 The rer.rsion petitioners who are defendalt Nos. l(r and 1 1 only filed th,: petition under Order VII Rule 11 of CpC, remaining defendants had not filed any petition for reje<;tion In l 15 SKS,J CRP.No.9O0 OF 2023 such circumstances, the question would arise whether plaint can be rejected at the instance of some defendants' In this regard, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Aggarwal vs. Axis Bank ltda', observed that while considering the issue whether the suit can be continued against someofthedefendants,heldthatsuchacourseisnotopento the Court and held that plaint can either be rejected as a whoie or not all. The Apex Court further held that it is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint including against some of the Defendants and continue the same against the others. It is also held that in certain terms that if the plaint survives amongst certain Defendalts and f or properties' Order 7 Rule 1 1 (d) CPC will have no application at all and the suit as a whole must then Proceed to trial' tg. Reverting to tJle facts of the case on hand' it is just and proper to note that the as per the course of law' the plaint can either be rejected, or can be maintained' whereas' there is no such provision in law through which the Court can partially reject the plaint. That being so, it is needless to mention that only defendant Nos.10 and 11 hled the application to reject the o 2ot9 7 scc 158 \ \ I 16 SKS,J CRP.No 900 OF 2023 plaint, ancl the same cannot be maintainable_ In view of the above, thouqh the revision petitioner contended that suit is barred bv lirr.itation, there is no cause of action ancl trre Court fee paid is jnsufhcient, further, the grounds raised by the petitioner eLre rightly discussed by the trial Court. Thr: Courts need to be cautious while dealing with petitions f-tled for rejection of Jrlaint at the threshold and exercise their powers of dismissal or11,,,. in cases where even on a plain reading of petition, r o c zruse of action is disclosed. Therefore, this Court is of the firrrL vierv that there are no illegalities or inlirmitic:s in the impugncrd or,ler dated 2a.O2.2023. There are no merrts; in this revision petitron and the same is liable to be dismissed.

20. Accc,rdirrgly, this Civil Revision petition IS dismissed There shall br: no order as to costs. Misce ll:ureous applications, if any pendinq, shall also \ stand closr:d. //TRUE COPY// SD/. N. SRI HARI 't, ASSISTAN]' REGISTRAR i \ + CTION OFFICER To, PIp/DLV

1. The Il Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sr Vadeendra Joshi, Aivocate lOeUCi 3. One CC lo Sr K.S. Suneel, Advocate tOpU'CI 4. One CC to Sr S. Malla Rao, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:031041202s ORDER CRP.No.900 of 2023 ir E s () R 14 )c -) a O 10 ,tPR m6 t oF.. Tr; (n', t' o A _t+ DISMISSING THE C.R.P. 4\u \# ( {0