Karnataka High Court
CRP/862/2026 of MURKANNAPPA Vs SIDDAPPA on 29 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010670942026 NC: 2026:KHC:54036 CRP No. 862 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 862 OF 2026 (IO-) BETWEEN: MURKANNAPPA S/O SIDDALINGAPPA AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 862 OF 2026 (IO-)
BETWEEN:
MURKANNAPPA
S/O SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
R/O M.MALLAPURA VILLAGE,
MADADAKERE HBLI
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA-577 527
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SIDDAPPA
S/O SHIDDANAIKA
AGRICULTURIST
R/O M MALLAPURA VILLAGE
MADADAKERE HOBLI
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRDURGA -577 527
2.
RANGAMMA
W/O GAVIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O BUKKASAGARA VILLAGE
MATHODU HOBLI
HOSADURGA TALUK
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
CHITRADURGA-577 533
3.
SIDDALINGAPPA
S/O SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
R/O M MALLAPURA VILLAGE,
MADADAKERE HBLI
HOSADURGA HOBLI
CHITRADURGA-577 527
4.
KENCHAMMA
D/O SHIDDANAIKA
W/O VARADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/O BANNIEKRE VILLAGE
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMAKURU-577 219
5.
SUJATHA
D/O LATE KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O M MALLAPURA VILLAGE,
MADADAKERE HBLI
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA-577 527
6.
MANJULA
D/O LATE KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O M MALLAPURA VILLAGE,
MADADAKERE HBLI
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA-577 527
7.
KARIBASAVESHWARA
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O M MALLAPURA VILLAGE,
MADADAKERE HBLI
HC-KAR
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA-577 527
8.
SHANKAR
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/O M MALLAPURA VILLAGE,
MADADAKERE HBLI
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA-577 527
…RESPONDENTS
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 15.07.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN OS
NO.638/2025 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, HOSADURGA, REJECTING THE IA NO.III FILED UNDER
ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC., R/W SEC.151 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
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.638/2025 by the Additional Civil Judge and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hosadurga.
HC-KAR
2. Respondent No.1 herein had filed a suit for partition. In that suit, the petitioner was arrayed as defendant No.8. It is the case of defendant No.8 that the suit schedule property was government-granted property and that in the revenue records also his name has been mutated. As such, there is no cause of action, and the present suit for partition is not maintainable. Hence, he filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. The trial Court, by order impugned had dismissed the application.
3. The trial Court, while dismissing the application, observed that the suit schedule property is a government- granted property and is the exclusive property of defendant No.2. Whether the suit property is ancestral joint family property of the parties or the exclusive property of defendant No.2 is the principal issue arising for determination in the suit. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated while considering an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and dismissed the same.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has reiterated the very same grounds as stated in the application
HC-KAR
and submits that when the property was granted by the government, the plaintiff cannot seek for an injunction and it is a ground for rejection of the plaint.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. When an application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, it is settled law that the Court can look only at the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint. Admittedly, whatever the case that is put forth by the defendant, as stated in the written statement and the application filed. In the light of the settled law, the Court cannot consider the defence of the defendant in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has rightly considered and dismissed the application, and this Court finds no reason to interfere. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. This Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter.
HC-KAR
ii. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
iii. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21