Sri.Channabasavaraju v. Smt.Sarvamangala

Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC was rejected, the petitioners/dependents are before this Court.

¶2The plaintiff filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, seeking the grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 26.07.1999, which is purported to have been executed by one Maleveeraiah. By an order dated 25.10.2019, the Court converted the petition into an original suit, designating the petitioner as the plaintiff and the respondents as the defendants. The present application was filed seeking

rejection of the plaint, stating that there are significant differences between probate proceedings and original proceedings. In probate proceedings, the court focuses on the validity of the Will, while a Civil Court in an original suit determines the rights of the parties involved. Consequently, they contend that probate proceedings filed by them were unrelated to the original proceedings initiated by defendant No.4. Therefore, plaint has to be rejected. That application came to be rejected by the order impugned.

¶3The trial Court observed that it is not the case of defendant No.4 that any statements made in the plaint or in the petition filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act are barred by law. Instead, defendant No.4 contends that since they have filed a suit for declaration regarding the Will dated 26.07.1999, as well as for the cancellation of the alleged Gift Deed dated 27.08.2016 in O.S.No.45/2023 at the III Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court in Tumakuru, the current petition is not maintainable and same is barred by law. These assertions are not reflected in the petition submitted by the plaintiff. It is well-established principles of law that when

considering an application for rejection of the plaint, the court should focus on the averments made in the plaint rather than the grounds raised in the written statement or the application for rejection. After examining the averments made in the petition, the Court is of the view that the suit is not barred by any law or that it would fall under any of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and accordingly dismissed the application.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court, in similar lines as raised before the trial Court, and submits that when a comprehensive suit is filed, P & SC cannot be continued.

¶5Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The trial court has rightly considered the case and given reasons. The trial Court has particularly observed that all these contentions relate to the comprehensive suit and other matters not stated in the plaint. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the trial Court can only look at the plaint averments, not the defence taken by the defendant, and has dismissed the

application. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has rightly considered the matter, and there are no grounds to interfere. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

ii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.633 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHANNABASAVARAJU S/O LATE MALEVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2. SRI. PRAKASH, S/O LATE MALEVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 3. SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, S/O LATE MALEVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT CHIKKAHALLI, HIREHALLI POST, URDIGERE HOBLI - 572 168 TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V.B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SARVAMANGALA, W/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2. SMT. GEETHA C.V. D/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.A1, VENKAT GAURAV, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42926( CRP(No.(633(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010478612026( ( ( TH4 ,CROSS,,GANESHA,BLOCK,,, DINNUR,MAIN,ROAD,,R.T.,NAGARA,-,560,032, BENGALURU,NORTH,,KARNATAKA., , 3., SMT.,POORNIMA,C.V., D/O,LATE,VEERABHADRAIAH,,, AGED,ABOUT,44,YEARS,, , RESPONDENT,NOS.1,AND,3,ARE,, R/AT,C/O,ARUNKUMAR.,N,, ST THNO.1312,,1 ,FLOOR,,10 ,'A',CROSS,,, TH ST4 ,BLOCK,,HBR,LAYOUT,,1 ,STAGE,,, BENGALURU,-,560,043., , 4., SRI.,PRABHUDEVAIAH, S/O,MALEVEERAIAH,, AGED,ABOUT,69,YEARS,,, R/AT,CHIKKAHALLI,VILLAGE,-,572,168,, HIREHALLI,POST,,URDIGERE,HOBLI,, TUMAKURU,TALUK,AND,DISTRICT, , 5., SMT.,MANGALAMMA, W/O,VEERABHADRAIAH,, D/O,MALEVEERAIAH,, AGED,ABOUT,68,YEARS,, R/AT,GULYA,,MADHURE,HOBLI,, DODDABALLAPURA,TALUK, BENGALURU,DISTRICT,-,561,203., , 6., SMT.,NEELAMMA, W/O,PANCHAKSHARAIAH,, D/O,LATE,MALEVEERAIAH,, AGED,ABOUT,66,YEARS,, R/AT,GOLLAHALLI,VILLAGE,, HEBBUR,HOBLI,-,572,120, TUMAKURU,TALUK,AND,DISTRICT, …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,RAVISHANKAR,G,S,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,&,R3), , THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.06.2026 PASSED IN OS NO.1/2019, REJECTING THE IA NO.XI, FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC, FILED BY THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.3, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.XI in O.S.No.1/2019 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, whereby the application filed under