CRP/426/2026 of TOTAL GREEN HOMES LLP Vs NAGARATHANAMMA on 10 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.III in O.S.No.1082/2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, the petitioner/defendant No.15 is before this Court.

2. The respondents Nos.1 to 4 herein, who are the plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.1082/2024 seeking partition and declaration that the registered sale agreement dated 25.08.2014, the registered sale deed dated 16.07.2021, and the registered Joint Development Agreement are not binding on the plaintiffs, and also sought a permanent injunction. In the suit, the petitioner/defendant No. 15 has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that the suit schedule property was originally granted to the propositus, one Poojamma. After her death, the entries in the revenue records were mutated to reflect the names of Poojamma’s three children, Muniyappa, Venkatalakshmamma, and Venkataramanappa. All three children have executed a registered Agreement of Sale dated 25.08.2014. On the same

HC-KAR

day they executed the Agreement of Sale, they executed a registered General Power of Attorney coupled with interest in favor of the petitioner. It is submitted that the grandchildren of Venkatalakshmamma are the plaintiffs.

3. The trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected I.A.No.III filed by defendant No.15. While rejecting the application, the trial Court observed that it is a mixed question of fact and law, the plaint is a bundle of facts, and that the Court can only look at the plaint averments. On these grounds, the application was rejected.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No. 15 submits that when an application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must not only look at the averments of the plaint but also the documents filed along with the plaint. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court and submits that the GPA, coupled with interest, was given to the petitioner, and after the death of Venkatalakshmamma, the property was registered in the name of the petitioner. That transaction is valid. It is further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider any of these

HC-KAR

aspects and the grounds raised by the petitioner. Further, the suit filed by the plaintiffs cannot be maintained, and on all these grounds, the plaint needs to be rejected.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/plaintiffs submits that the trial court rightly considered all aspects and rejected the application, and there are no grounds to interfere.

6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that in the entire order, there is no mention about the documents filed along with the plaint. The trial Court simply dealt with the case, observing that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and that, at this stage, the Court cannot go into all the aspects. Considering the prime contention of the petitioner with regard to the entitlement of the plaintiffs to seek partition, the trial Court ought to have considered it by looking into the plaint averments and the documents filed along with the plaint. Unfortunately, the trial Court failed to consider these aspects and the documents. In

HC-KAR

that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order:

ORDER

i. The order dated 01.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.III in O.S.No.1082/2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. ii. The trial Court shall consider I.A.No.III afresh in accordance with law.

iii. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32