VENKATESH v. KANTHAMMA

3. SMT. SUJATHA, W/O LATE BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

4. KUMARI CHAITHRA, D/O LATE BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE, R/AT NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5443 WP No. 3927 of 2020 ASHWATHANAGAR, THANISANDRA, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK.

5. SRI. SRINIVAS, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA @ AJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O ASHWATHANAGARA,, DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR POST, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560077.

6. SMT. SUJATHAMMA, D/O NARAYANAPPA @ AJJAPPA, W/O BASAVARAJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT PAPANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

7. SRI. N. RAJA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA @ AJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O ASHWATHANAGARA,, DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR POST, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560077.

8. SRI. DANIGA JALAM, S/O DORAI SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, OPP. TO AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, BANGALORE-32.

9. SRI. MUNISWAMY, S/O ERUCHIN, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT ASHWATHNAGAR, 3RD MAIN ROAD, THANISANDRA,, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5443 WP No. 3927 of 2020

10. SMT. SUGUNA, W/O A.RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT MUNIYAPPA COMPOUND, VIJANAPURA, BANGALORE-54

11. SMT. SNEHA BISWAS, W/O DR. SHYMAL BISWAS, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PALGUNI SURVEILLANCE UNIT,, N.I.C.D. N.T.I CAMPUS, BANGALORE-03

12. SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI, W/O SOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

13. SRI. SOHANLAL, S/O DOWLATH RAM, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.12 AND 13 ARE, R/AT NO.357, ASHWATHNAGAR, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-45, ALSO AT PSU/NICO, N.I.T. CAMPUS-8, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-03.

14. SRI. N.C. BASAVAIAH, S/O LATE CHANNA BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT NO.115, 3RD CROSS, MOUNT JOY EXTENSION, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE.

15. SRI. VENKATAPPA, S/O PATEL MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT P.M. LAYOUT, NEAR VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE, - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5443 WP No. 3927 of 2020 NAGAVARE, BANGALORE-45

16. SRI. C.H. SELVARAJ, S/O MAHADEVAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

17. SMT. C.H. RUKMINIDEVI, W/O SELVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 16 AND 17 ARE, R/AT NO.5/5, 4TH MAIN ROAD, TATA SILK FORM, BNAGALORE-82.

18. SRI. G.N. SUBBARAIDU, S/O LATE THIRUPALU, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, 13TH CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560079

19. SRI. MUTHARAYA, S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, CHANNAKRISHNAPPA STREET, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE-03

20. SMT. P. MAMATHA, W/O M. NAVEEN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.832, 2ND 'B' CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-43.

21. SRI. P. CHANDRAPPA, S/O PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, 2ND CROSS, NEAR JYOTHI SCHOOL, KACHARAKANAHALI, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE-560084 - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5443 WP No. 3927 of 2020

22. SRI. V. MUNEGOWDA, W/O VENKATANARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.383, 2ND CROSS, MUNISOMEGOWDA LAYOUT, BEHIND TELECOM LAYOUT, THANISANDRA VILLAGE, DR. SHIVARAMKARNATH NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560077

23. SRI. N. NARAYANA, S/O SIDDOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, ASHWATHANAGAR, ANJJAPPA LAYOUT, THANISANDRA ROAD, DR. SHIVARAMKARNATH NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560077

24. SRI. B. SRINIVAS, S/O G. BHADRANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.145, THANISANDRA, DR. SHIVARAMKARNATH NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560077

25. SRI. MOHAMMED INAYATHULLA SHERIFF, S/O MIOHAMMED MUMTHAZ SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, 6TH CROSS, KEMPAIAH BLOCK, J.C. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560006

26. KUMARI PADMALATHA KRISHNA, D/O K.K. KRISHNAN, R/AT NO.2, N.T.I. LAYOUT, NAGASHETTY VILLAGE, RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE.

27. SRI. M. JAGADISH KUMAR, S/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5443 WP No. 3927 of 2020 BANGALORE-45

28. SRI. G. CHANDRA, S/O LATE N GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, HEERACHAND LAYOUT, JEEVANAHALLI, COXTOWN, BANGALORE-560005

29. SMT. POORNIMA CHANDRA, W/O S. SHIVASHANKARA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

30. SRI. S. SHIVASHANKARA, S/O LATE SEETHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.29 AND 30 ARE, R/AT NO.1629, LAKSHMI PLAZA, 50 FEET ROAD, 1ST STAGE, KUMARASWAMY ROAD, BANGALORE-560078.

31. THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-77

32. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-77

33. SRI. MANJUNATH, S/O MEKALANNA RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

34. SRI. SATISHA, S/O MEKALAMMA RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

35. SMT. SHANTHAMMA, W/O ANJINAPPA, - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:5443 WP No. 3927 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

36. SRI. MAREGOWDA, S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

37. SRI. NAVEEN, S/O KODANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

38. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

39. SRI. NATARAJ, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

40. SRI. RAMESH, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

41. SRI. NANDAKUMAR, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

42. SMT. JAYASHREE, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

43. SRI. AMBARISH, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.33 TO 43 ARE, R/O ASHWATHNAGARA,, DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR POST, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560077

44. SMT. RAMANI POORANESON, W/O DR. POORANESON RAJU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.200/A, POORNIMA HOSPITAL, HMT LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR,, - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:5443 WP No. 3927 of 2020 BANGALORE-32

45. SRI. C.T. PAULACHAN, S/O C.O. THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

46. SMT. SHERLY PAULACHAN, W/O C.T. PAULACHAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.45 AND 46 ARE, R/AT NO.201/A, II CROSS, II MAIN, VIVEKANAGAR FURTHER EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560042. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.12, 13, 23, 29, 30, 33, 37 TO 40, 42 AND 43; SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.31 AND 32; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2, 5 TO 8, 19, 21, 22, 24, 28, 34 AND 36; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.01.2024 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.41 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.02.2024 PETITION AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS.3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15 TO 18, 20, 25 TO 27, 35, 45 AND 46 IS DISMISSED; PETITION AGAINST DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.14 IS DIMISSED AS ABATED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED

04.01.2020 IN O.S.NO.8767/2014 BY THE LEARNED VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-19) BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:5443 WP No. 3927 of 2020 ORDER The plaintiff in O.S.No.8767/2014 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this petition challenging an order dated 04.01.2020 by which, the Trial Court framed a preliminary issue, whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.

2. The suit in O.S.No.8767/2014 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties and for consequential reliefs to declare the various conveyances executed by the defendants as null and void and not binding upon his share. The suit was contested by the defendants. The Trial Court after perusing the pleading on record, entertained a doubt about the maintainability of the suit and therefore, framed a preliminary issue, "Whether the suit of the plaintiff was barred under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC?" Since the plaintiff did not appear before the Court and address arguments on the said issue, the Trial Court posted the case for orders. - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:5443 WP No. 3927 of 2020

3. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the Trial Court could not have framed a preliminary issue, whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. He submitted that such an issue did not arise as it was not claimed by any of the defendants that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. Even otherwise, he contends that once an issue is framed, it was incumbent upon the Court to record evidence and thereafter, decide the issue. Since the same is not done but the case is posted for orders, the said order deserves to be interfered with. Further, he contends that a perusal of the plaint does disclose that the suit is based on sufficient cause of action and is not barred by any law and therefore, the Trial Court misdirected itself in framing an issue, whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for contesting defendants submitted that though the issue as framed by Trial - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:5443 WP No. 3927 of 2020 Court could not be construed as a preliminary issue but contended that the Trial Court is always vested with the power under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject a plaint and therefore, put the parties on alert by framing such an issue. He submitted that since the plaintiff did not address arguments on the question raised by the Trial Court, the Trial Court held no alternative than to post the case for judgment.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the learned counsel for the contesting defendants.

7. The power of the Court to reject a plaint on the ground that it lacks cause of action or that it is barred by any law, or that the suit is mischievous, is inbuilt. Therefore, there was no need for the Trial Court to frame a preliminary issue as stated supra. But the Trial Court could test the case whether there was any cause of action for the suit or whether it was barred by any law or that it was mischievous. Since the Trial Court has now raised this question, it was necessary to hear arguments of the plaintiff on this question and to be satisfied that the suit was based on sufficient cause of action and that it - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:5443 WP No. 3927 of 2020 was not barred by any law. Therefore, the order posting the case to orders on the preliminary issue deserves to be interfered with, though it is unnecessary to set aside the issue framed by the Trial Court, in view of the findings recorded above.

8. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. However, the Trial Court is directed to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to address arguments on the question framed by it and thereafter, decide the case in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25