SMT. YELLAMMA & Ors. v. NONE

13. SMT. PAPAMMA W/O. LATE MARIYAPPA WORKING AT ISOLATION GOVT. HOSPITAL OLD MADRAS ROAD BENGALURU CIVIL STATION BENGALURU.

14. SMT. SUSHILAMMA W/O. LATE MALLAPPA R/AT OLD BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR 1ST PHASE INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038.

15. SMT. NANJUMUNNISA W/O. ABDUL KHADAR SAHEB AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT 26, MASJID STREET NEELASANDRA CIVIL STATION BENGALURU-560 018.

16. SMT. KANIEKYA MARY W/O. MARIA DASS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.20 3RD MAIN, GOUTHAM PURA ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR

17. SMT. KRISHNAMMA W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOU T 69 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.33, OLD BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038.

18. SRI. MAHESHA S/O. SRI GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.25 OLD BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR 1ST PHASE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 038.

19. SRI. ALLABAKASH S/O. LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

20. SRI. IMRAM PASHA S/O. LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R19 AND R20 ARE R/AT OLD BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR 1ST PHASE INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 088.

21. SRI. NOORULLA S/O. LATE SUNNAJAN AND LATE SMT. AMEER BI @ MAZAN BI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.10, AMARJYOTHI NAGAR BHARATH NAGAR, THANISANDRA DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR BENGALURU-560 077.

22. SRI. GANGADHAR .M S/O. SRI MUNILINGAPPA .A AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.22, BINNAMANGALA - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR 1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THONTADARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.B. AJITH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R18 TO R22) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S. 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2025 PASSED ON IA III IN OS NO. 4773/2025, ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE IA NO. III FILED U/O VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by the plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint by the trial Court. Hence, the present appeal.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs instituted a O.S.No.4773/2025 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of three items of suit schedule - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR properties. In addition, they have sought a declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.11 dated 04.11.1960; the sale deed dated 05.05.1961 executed by defendant No.12 in favour of defendant No.14; the sale deed dated 12.07.1961 executed in favour of defendant No.13; the sale deed dated 15.03.1963 executed in favour of defendant No.15; the sale deed dated 04.02.1970 executed by defendant No.15 in favour of one Sunnajan @ Abdul Sab; and the subsequent sale deeds dated 28.11.1975, 10.02.1994, 04.03.2016,

29.11.2018, 21.01.2021 and 23.04.2021 are not binding on the plaintiffs’ legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.

4. The contesting defendants, who are subsequent purchasers, entered appearance upon service of summons and filed their written statements. They also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR ground that the plaint averments do not disclose any cause of action and that the suit is barred by law.

5. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing both sides on the said application and upon consideration of the objections filed by the plaintiffs, by the impugned order rejected the plaint, holding that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, would contend that the learned Trial Judge has erred in non-suiting the plaintiffs by invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC, resulting in miscarriage of justice. He would submit that the learned Judge has misread the averments in the plaint and has virtually conducted a mini- trial at the threshold. Referring to the documents produced along with the plaint, learned counsel would argue that item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties continue to be retained by the plaintiffs’ family and that there are - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR no conveyances or alienations executed by the plaintiffs’ father in respect of these items.

7. It is further contended that insofar as item No.1 is concerned, the plaintiffs’ father had only mortgaged the property by way of mortgage by conditional sale and that the said mortgage was subsequently redeemed, thereby restoring full ownership and possession in favour of the family. On these premises, it is urged that the issues raised involve disputed questions of fact which require adjudication after a full-fledged trial and cannot be decided while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11. In the alternative, it is submitted that even assuming the alienations pleaded by the defendants, the entire extent of all three items was never conveyed and, therefore, the plaintiffs are at least entitled to seek partition in respect of the portion retained by the family.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting defendants would submit that the plaintiffs - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR have themselves produced title documents which clearly establish that the suit schedule properties were the self- acquired properties of the plaintiffs’ father. He has placed reliance on a tabular statement and a flow chart depicting the chain of alienations commencing from 1958 up to

2021. Referring to these documents, he would contend that the plaintiffs have unequivocally admitted that their father had absolute title and, consequently, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to question the alienations effected by him. It is further contended that the plea now sought to be advanced in the appeal, that a portion of the properties remained unsold, does not find place in the plaint.

9. Learned counsel would further submit that the materials placed on record clearly demonstrate that the entire extent of the suit schedule properties has been alienated long ago and that the present suit is a stale and vexatious claim, filed without any subsisting right, only to harass bona fide purchasers. He would therefore contend that the learned Trial Judge has rightly exercised - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC and that the impugned order does not call for interference.

10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings and the reliefs sought in the plaint. This Court has also carefully examined the documents produced by the plaintiffs along with the plaint. Upon such consideration, the following points arise for consideration:

1. Whether the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court?

2. What order? Finding on Point No.1:

11. Before this Court adverts the order impugned, this Court deems it fit to extract the crucial pleadings which has a direct bearing on the plaintiffs claim - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR in the present suit. Para 6 would be relevant and the same is extracted as under: "6. The plaintiffs further submit that the ancestor of plaintiffs i.e., Ramaiah @ Rangappa was acquired the suit schedule properties of the house property No.321 as per Sale vide No.229/54-55 of 14-05-1954 alongwith the title of Sale Deed vide Document No.984/1953-54 dated 10-08-1953 to an extent of portion, out of total 50x95 ft. in respect of Item No.1 to 3 of Suit Schedule Properties. Thereafter, the said 3 extents of Item No.1 to 3 of Suit Schedule Properties was mortgaged the same properties in favour of Defendant No.11 by the Ramaiah @ Rangappa vide Mortgaged by conditional Sale Deed Regd. No.1069/1958-59 dated 25-07-1958 for total sale consideration of Rs.200/- before the witness of Sri Doddamarappa & Others. The certified copies of Sale Deed dated 10-05-1954 and 10-08-1953 and Mortgaged conditional Sale Deed dated 25-07-1958 are produced herewith." (Emphasis supplied)

12. On a careful reading of the extracted pleadings, it becomes manifest that the plaintiffs have, in clear and unequivocal terms, acknowledged that the suit schedule properties, namely item Nos.1 to 3, were purchased by their father, Ramaiah @ Rangappa, under a registered sale - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR deed dated 14.05.1954 from the erstwhile owner, Jayaram. The plaint thus leaves no manner of doubt that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of the plaintiffs’ father and not ancestral or family properties.

13. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that the subsequent sale deed dated 18.02.1965 executed by their father, Ramaiah @ Rangappa, along with plaintiff No.4, who was admittedly a minor at the relevant point of time, is invalid and not binding, on the premise that the said alienation is contrary to Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. By raising such a plea, the plaintiffs themselves proceed on the admitted footing that their father had executed conveyances in respect of the suit schedule properties and that the challenge is confined only to the legality of such alienations and not to the title of their father over the properties. - 13 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR

14. The plaint further discloses an express admission, particularly in paragraph 22, that pursuant to the sale deeds executed in favour of the contesting defendants and their predecessors-in-title, the revenue and municipal records maintained by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike reflect the names of the purchasers. This admission unmistakably indicates that the alienations have been acted upon and that the contesting defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, with their names standing recorded in the official records.

15. In the backdrop of these categorical admissions contained in the plaint itself, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraphs 21 and 22 of the plaint, which read as under: "21. The Plaintiffs submit that the Sale Deed No.3484/1964-65 dated 18-12-1965 in the name of Smt. Ameer Bi @ Mazan Bi, W/o. Sunnajan @ Abdul Sab executed by Rangappa and his son Muniyappa i.e., 2nd son was minor 10 years, Lingappa, 3rd son was - 14 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR minor 4 years, Rama, 4th son was minor 2 years Muniswamy, whose represented by father Rangappa vide property No.391, House property and Angala vacant property measuring East to West: 30 ft. and North to South: 42 ft. hence, entire suit schedule property with other property are not disclosing the title property and also boundary of peaceful possession of sale deed dated 18-12-1965 and as such the said sale deed, without having minor sale permission under Section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the sale deed dated 18-12-1965 is void document and as such the alleged Sale Deed dated 10-12-1965 is not binding on Plaintiffs.

22. The Plaintiffs submit that by misuse of extent and boundary in property of No.321, the Defendant No.11 to 14 are trying to interfere with our lawful possession of suit schedule properties and rectified the revenue records in BBMP limits by colluded with the BBMP officials and as such Defendant No.19 to 21 have not right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties with another said property i.e., Item No.1 to 3 of the Suit Schedule Property as per said Sale Deed."

16. The aforesaid extracted paragraphs further disclose that subsequent to the alienations effected by the plaintiffs’ father, the suit schedule properties have been subjected to multiple transactions, with several - 15 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR subsequent purchasers deriving title from their respective predecessors-in-interest. The plaint itself traces a long chain of conveyances, spanning several decades, thereby demonstrating that the alienations were not isolated transactions but were acted upon, followed by further transfers, development and enjoyment by third parties.

17. In this backdrop, the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in the plaint assume considerable significance. The plaintiffs, despite admitting the original acquisition by their father and the subsequent alienations, have sought wide-ranging declaratory reliefs to nullify not only the primary conveyances executed by their father but also a series of subsequent sale deeds executed by successive purchasers. The nature and sweep of the prayers, when read in conjunction with the admissions contained in the plaint, are therefore required to be examined to ascertain whether a legally sustainable cause of action is disclosed. - 16 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR

18. Having regard to the admissions regarding alienations, mutation of records, and the long lapse of time during which the properties have changed hands, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the prayer column of the plaint, which reads as under: "WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an Order of Judgment & Decree in favour of the Plaintiffs as: (a) to effect partition of 4/9th jointly legitimate shares of Plaintiffs by metes and bounds in respect of the Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property. (b) to hold the Defendant No.11, has sold in favour of Defendant No.12 under the regd. Sale Deed vide No.2220/1960-61 dated 04-11-1960 in respect of property No.321, East to West 19½ ft., North to South 20 ft. is not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property. (c) to hold the Defendant No.11 has sold in favour of Defendant No.13 under the regd. Sale Deed vide No.2221/1960-61 dated 04-11-1960 in respect of property No.321, East to West 19½ ft., North to South 20 ft. is not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of the Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property. - 17 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR (d) to hold the Defendant No. 12 has sold in favour of Defendant No.14 to an extent of East to West 19 ½ ft. and North to South 20 ft. under Sale Deed No.436/1961- 62 dated 05-05-1961 is not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property. (e) to hold the Defendant No.14 has sold in favour of Defendant No.13 under Regd. Sale Deed No.1216/1961-62 dated 12-07-1961 to extent of 19½ ft. x 20 ft. vide property No.321 is not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of the Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property. (f) to hold the Defendant No.13 has executed the Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.15 under Regd. Sale Deed No.3864/1962-63 dated 15-03-1963 to an extent of 19½ ft. x 20 ft. vide Property No.321 is not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No. 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property. (g) to hold the Defendant No.15 was sold in favour of one Sri Sunnajan @Abdul Sab, who is none other than the ancestor of Defendant No.19 to 21, under the Sale Deed No.3443/1969-70 dated 04-02-1970 is not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property. (h) to the Sri Sunnajan @ Abdul Sab was sold in favour of his wife Smt. Ameer Bi @ Mazan Bi who are father and mother of Defendant No.21 under regd. Sale Deed vide No.2628/1975-76 dated 28-11-1975 not - 18 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property. (i) to hold the Defendant No. 16 has sold in favour of Defendant No.17 and her sister and aunty of Defendant No.18 under Regd. Sale Deed No.3518/1993- 94 dated 10-02-1994 to an extent of East to West 39 ft. and North to South 20 ft. is not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property. (j) to hold the Defendant No.17 has sold in favour of Defendant No.14 under the regd. Sale Deed No. 10025/2015-16 dated 04-03-2016 in property No.321 new No.25 (25/3) to an extent of 50% out of East to West 39 x 20 Sq.ft. is not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property. (k) to hold the Smt. Ameer Bi executed in favour of her son by namely Chand Pasha, who is father of Defendant No.19 & 20 has created the Gift Deed vide No.8113/2018-19 dated 29-11-2018 is not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule properties. (l) to hold the Defendant No.21 has created the Sale Deed dated 21-01-2021 vide No.8573/2020-21 is not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property. (m) to hold the Defendant No.19 to 21 have created the Sale Deed dated 23-04-2021 vide No.850/2021-22 in respect of the Schedule 'B' and 'C' Property is not binding on the Plaintiffs. - 19 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR (n) to restraining the Defendant No.18 to 20, 22 from alienating the Item No.1 to 3 of suit schedule property in favour of 3rd parties until disposal of the suit. (0) to restraining the Defendant No.18 to 20, 22 from putting up the construction in respect of the Item No.1 to 3 of suit schedule property until disposal of the suit. (p) to grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant, in the circumstances of the case and award the cost of this suit in the ends of Justice and Equity." (Emphasis Supplied)

19. The extracted prayer column, when read in conjunction with the pleadings, provides a deeper insight into the chequered history of the suit schedule properties. It clearly demonstrates that, after the initial alienations by the plaintiffs’ father, the properties have passed through several hands and have been subjected to multiple transactions over a long span of time. These alienations, commencing as early as the year 1960, therefore require to be examined in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chhedilal Yadav and others Vs. - 20 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR Harikishore Yadav (dead) through representatives and others1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned courts against entertaining belated challenges to transactions which have attained finality and have been acted upon by third parties.

20. If the prayer sought in the present plaint is read conjointly with paragraph 6 of the plaint, it becomes manifest that the plaintiffs do not assert any independent or original right over the suit schedule properties. On the contrary, they unequivocally trace their alleged right only by way of inheritance through their father, Ramaiah. Having admitted that the suit schedule properties were self-acquired properties of their father, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs have any locus standi to seek partition by inheritance after their father had alienated the properties during his lifetime. 1 (2018) 12 SCC 527 - 21 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR

21. A holistic reading of the entire plaint further discloses that the plaintiffs’ father, Ramaiah, never questioned or challenged any of the alienations during his lifetime. Though the learned Trial Judge could have also examined the issue from the standpoint of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the learned Judge has consciously confined the enquiry to the narrower but decisive question as to whether the plaint discloses any cause of action.

22. On a deeper scrutiny of the plaint averments, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the present suit is a classic instance of a stale and dead claim being sought to be resurrected. The plaint reflects a feeble and ill- conceived attempt to misuse the process of law by instituting a frivolous suit which, on the face of it, does not disclose any cause of action whatsoever.

23. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have consistently held that the - 22 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR averments in the plaint must, in substance, spell out a clear and subsisting cause of action. If the pleadings fail to disclose such cause of action, the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold. In the present case, the plaintiffs’ father admittedly lost all subsisting rights in respect of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the sale deeds executed on 25.07.1958 and the subsequent registered sale deeds dated 04.11.1960, 04.11.1960 and

18.02.1965.

24. The title documents produced by the plaintiffs themselves, unmistakably reveal that Shivaprasad Singh, who purchased the properties, subsequently sold them to Muniyamma, Papamma and partly to the plaintiffs’ father. The portion purchased by the plaintiffs’ father on

18.02.1965 was again alienated by him on the very same day in favour of Majan Bi. Thereafter, the properties continued to change hands through a series of registered transactions, including gifts and further sales, culminating in alienations extending up to the year 1994 and beyond. - 23 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR

25. This uninterrupted chain of transactions, commencing from 1960 and extending over several decades, clearly establishes that the plaintiffs’ father had completely lost his title and interest over the entire extent of the suit schedule properties. Even the limited portion re-purchased by him on 18.02.1965 was immediately alienated on the same day, thereby extinguishing any subsisting right.

26. Therefore, the core issue that arises consideration is whether the plaint, as a whole, discloses any cause of action at all. For the purpose of adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 11, the Court is required to examine only the averments in the plaint. The pleadings and the reliefs sought therein unequivocally demonstrate that the plaintiffs’ father had lost all rights, title and interest in the suit schedule properties as early as

18.02.1965. The plaintiffs themselves have produced the title documents and have admitted that their father was the absolute owner and that the properties have - 24 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR undergone multiple alienations. On the basis of the plaintiffs’ own pleadings and documents, it is evident that no cause of action survives.

27. A suit instituted in the year 2025, seeking to unsettle transactions that have attained finality between 1960 and 1965, is nothing but a speculative and frivolous attempt to rake up settled issues, clearly lacking bona fides.

28. On a cumulative reading of the entire plaint, this Court finds that it does not disclose even a fragment of a cause of action warranting adjudication. The power under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC is intended precisely to deal with such cases, so as to nip frivolous and vexatious litigation in the bud. In such circumstances, the Court of first instance is not obliged to relegate the parties to a full-fledged trial.

29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that such litigations are often initiated not with a - 25 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR genuine expectation of success, but with the object of prolonging litigation and exerting pressure on bona fide purchasers, in the hope of extracting a settlement.

30. It is also a matter of common judicial notice that properties situated in Bengaluru have witnessed exponential escalation in market value over the past few decades. This escalation has unfortunately given rise to a spate of speculative and stale claims, wherein litigants seek to reopen long-settled transactions with oblique motives. The repeated insistence by the plaintiffs’ counsel that the matter requires a full-fledged trial, in the facts of the present case, itself betrays the intention to keep the litigation alive rather than to seek genuine adjudication. Courts are therefore required to be vigilant and adopt a pragmatic and sensitive approach to protect the rights of bona fide purchasers.

31. In the present case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the plaint does not disclose any cause of - 26 - NC: 2026:KHC:3051 RFA No. 2952 of 2025 HC-KAR action. The judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another2, Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali (Gajra), through LRs. and Others3, and Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh4, squarely apply to the facts of the present case. These decisions unequivocally hold that stale claims, devoid of a subsisting cause of action, deserve to be rejected at the threshold.

32. In the light of the foregoing discussion and analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the Court of first instance has correctly applied the principles governing Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. The Trial Court has rightly concluded that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The findings recorded by the Trial Court clearly demonstrate due consideration of the plaint averments, the reliefs sought, and the title documents ORDER Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58