ORDER : V. SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri.Prakash S. Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Ravishankar S., learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1. Notice to other respondents is dispensed as they are the co-defendants. 2. Defendant No.1 is the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 27.09.2025 passed in O.S. No.99/2023 in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short). 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.99/2023 with the following prayer in respect of the following property: "PRAYER Wherefore, the plaintiff pray that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass judgment an ddecree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants for the following relief: i. To declare that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. ii. For consequential grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents and anybody claiming under them from interfereing in the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. iii. To grant the cost of the suit. iv. To grant any such other necessary relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deem fit under the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.48, Than new Sy.No.48/1, measuring 1 acre 3 guntas situated at Giddenahalli village, Dasanapura Hobali, Bangalore North Taluk, which is the possession of plaintiff with house and electricity connection bounded on the: Direction Property East Same Sy.No.48 property belonging to Chikkahanumaiah now belongs to Anjanappa West Chikkanarayanappa property North Same Sy.No.48 property belongs to Hanumaiah South Talavara Inamathi property Comprising of standing coconut tree, house and pump house set and electric panel board and drinking water to channel for cattle.” 3.2. Plaintiff claims that he is the absolute owner in respect of the land in Sy.No.48, totally measuring 4 acres 12 guntas including 7 guntas of karab land situated at Giddenhali village, Dasanapura Hobali, Bangalore North Taluk. 3.3. Plaintiff claims that he is the absolute owner in respect of the land in Sy.No.48, totally measuring 4 acres 12 guntas including 7 guntas of karab land situated at Giddenhali village, Dasanapura Hobali, Bangalore North Taluk. 3.3. Plaintiff further contended that on 05.08.1958 Hanumanthaiah son of Chikkahanumaiah, who is the father of the plaintiff had acquired the said land measuring 2 acres 2.5 guntas in the Giddenhali village, Dasanapura Hobali and same was allotted to Hanumanthaiah under the Inam Abolition Act vide order No.22875 issued by the Special Land Commissioner, Bangalore, Kolar and Tumakuru Districts. Thereafter, the occupancy rights were confirmed and there was an endorsement issued in favour of Hanumanthaiah. 3.4. Said Hanumanthaiah cultivated the said land and he became the owner in respect of 2 acres 2.5 guntas of land without any obstruction or hindrance from anybody. 3.5. Certified copy of the revenue records were placed on record to substantiate the said aspect of the matter. 3.6. Plaintiff further contended that after the death of Hanumanthaiah, his sons namely plaintiff and his wife namely Mayamma - defendant No.3 and defendant Nos.4 to 7 had a Panchayath Parikath on 21.06.1986 and the land was divided equally. 3.7. It is further contented that 1 acre 3 guntas of land had fell into the share of each of them. The said land which fell to the share of the plaintiff is shown as suit schedule property. 3.8. Plaintiff further contended that as per the Panchayath Parikath, katha of the property was also mutated in respect of 1 acre 3 guntas and plaintiff's land was renumbered as Sy.No.48/1 by MR No.4/1985-86 and reflected in the RTC extracts. 3.9. It is further contented by the plaintiff that partition was acted upon and possession and enjoyment of the suit property was with the plaintiff and he started enjoying the same as absolute owner thereof by paying the taxes to the revenue authorities. 3.10. Plaintiff further contented that in order to develop the suit property on 06.12.2005, when he gave an application for obtaining sheep farm loan in respect of the suit property to Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, bank granted sum of Rs.37,100/- as loan to the plaintiff. 3.11. Thereafter, plaintiff constructed a house measuring East to West 40 feet North to South 30 feet for the purpose of sheep farming. 3.12. 3.11. Thereafter, plaintiff constructed a house measuring East to West 40 feet North to South 30 feet for the purpose of sheep farming. 3.12. Plaintiff also contended that he had taken necessary No Objection Certificate from the Kadabagere Grama Panchayath for the construction and electricity connection was also obtained in respect of the said house and documents were placed on record to substantiate the same. 3.13. Plaintiff again obtained crop loan in the year 2022 and at the instructions of the bank authorities, when he tried to mobilize the documents for the purpose of obtaining the loan, he came to know that RTC in his name is not recognized by the revenue authorities and he was able to notice that the name of the defendants were shown in respect of the suit property and therefore, he had to make further enquiries. 3.14. Plaintiff further contented that from the date of partition, he is in possession of the suit property and he approached the jurisdictional police and police in turn directed them to approach the Civil Court. 3.15. Cause of action thus, in the plaint paragraph is at paragraph No.15 which reads as under: “The cause of action for filing the suit arose on 21.06.1986 the plaintiff has acquired the suit property under partition and on 10.12.2022, when the plaintiff had approached the bank for crop loan to verified the document at this juncture the defendants are created the documents in his favour and the plaintiff has no option except filing the present suit as sought in the prayer all the act are done within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The suit is in time.” 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto and contented that there was no Panchayat Parikath. 5. Defendants also contented that after the death of the father of the defendants, there was a partition in the year 1996 to 1997 and as per the said partition, they are the owners of the suit property. 6. 5. Defendants also contented that after the death of the father of the defendants, there was a partition in the year 1996 to 1997 and as per the said partition, they are the owners of the suit property. 6. Defendant No.1 also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC supported by affidavit wherein he has contented that a false suit has been filed against the plaintiff and it is further contented that there was a jubani parikath in the year 1932-1933 and same is found from the patta book and therefore, defendants are the owners and there is no cause of action to the suit and sought for rejection of the plaint. 7. Plaint was sought to be rejected on the ground of limitation by defendant No.1. 8. Same was opposed to by the plaintiff by filing written objections. 9. Learned Trial Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.26 to 30 as under: "26. I have carefully considered the above decision. The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the present suit. In Irshad Baig (supra), the plaintiff sought a declaration without title, whereas in the present case, the plaintiff asserts title through a grant under the Inams Abolition Act, followed by partition and mutation, and claims continuous possession. Hence, the ratio laid down in Irshad Baig (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 27. Admittedly, the present suit is for declaration and injunction and suit is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Time, for filing a suit for declaration under Article 58 of the Limitation Act will run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. In Muragha chetti and others V/s. Rajaswami and others, AIR 1916 Mad 130, the Madras High Court held that, the cause of action for declaratory suit, based on denial of title, does not arise until the plaintiff has knowledge of the denial. 28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ghewarchand and others V/s. M/s. Mahendra Singh and other, reported in 2018 (2) Kar.L.R. 807 (SC), wherein in para No.21 it is held that; 21. 28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ghewarchand and others V/s. M/s. Mahendra Singh and other, reported in 2018 (2) Kar.L.R. 807 (SC), wherein in para No.21 it is held that; 21. In order to decide the question of limitation as to whether the suit is filed within time or not, the court is mainly required to see the plaint allegations and how the plaintiff has pleaded the accrual of cause of action for filing the suit. In this case, we find that the plaintiffs satisfied his requirement to bring their suit within limitation. In the above Judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in order to decide the question of limitation, the Court is mainly required to see the plaint allegations and how the plaintiff has pleaded the accrual of cause of action for filing the suit. As I said earlier, the plaintiff in his plaint pleaded that the cause of action for the suit arose on 10.12.2022 , when the Plaintiff approached the bank for a crop loan, he was shocked to learn that his name was missing from the RTC. On enquiry, it was revealed that the Defendants, in collusion with revenue authorities, had fraudulently mutated the property in their names, assigning several sub-numbers to Sy.No.48 (48/1, 48/2, 48/3, etc.). 29. It is apposite to refer Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in AIR 1980 P & H 25 in Ibrahim V/s. Smt. Sharifan, wherein in para No.8 it is held that; 8……………….Mere entry of a mutation in the name of the defendant would not furnish any cause of action to the plaintiff. This view of ours finds full support from the judgment of the Division Bench in Niamat Singh v, Danbari Singh etc., (1956) 58 PLR 461 . Thus, we do not agree with the learned single Judge that the cause of action arose when the mutation was entered in the name of the defendant and consequently, reverse the finding on issue No. 4 and hold that the suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation. In view of the above decision, mere entry of a mutation in the name of the defendant would not furnish any cause of action to the plaintiff. In the light of the above legal position, there is no merit in the application of the defendants. 30. In view of the above decision, mere entry of a mutation in the name of the defendant would not furnish any cause of action to the plaintiff. In the light of the above legal position, there is no merit in the application of the defendants. 30. In the present case, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that: he has been in possession since 1986, only in December 2022 did he discover the fraudulent revenue entries, and that mere mutation entries do not extinguish ownership rights. Thus, the plaint does disclose a cause of action and it cannot be said that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation merely on the face of plaint averments. Whether the plea of limitation ultimately succeeds is a matter for trial after evidence, and cannot be adjudicated at this preliminary stage.” 10. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed the present revision petition on the following grounds: The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the following among other: The trial court has wrongly interpreted Order VII Rule 11 CPC from a plain reading of the plaint itself, the suit is barred by law of limitation and discloses no cause of action against the petitioner/1 Defendant, and hence ought to have been rejected at the threshold. The trial court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff's father had already relinquished his rights under "Jubane Vibhaga", which stands reflected in the revenue records. Thus, the plaintiff cannot claim ownership in 2023 based on an alleged grant of 1958. The trial court erred in ignoring the bar under Order II Rule 2(1)(2) CPC, since the plaintiff, having given up his rights and transferred them in 2007 to Defendant No.3, cannot now institute a fresh declaratory suit against Defendant No. 1. The finding of the trial court that "cause of action arose in 2022" is perverse it's not against the petitioner/defendant No.1. The plaintiff has admitted that he has been out of possession since 2007 and has not challenged the petitioner's title and possession for nearly four decades or from the 2007 when he transferred his very same property to the defendant No.3 with consented by him, according the entered the revenue entry in the name of 3rd defendant in MR No.22/2006-2007. The plaintiff has admitted that he has been out of possession since 2007 and has not challenged the petitioner's title and possession for nearly four decades or from the 2007 when he transferred his very same property to the defendant No.3 with consented by him, according the entered the revenue entry in the name of 3rd defendant in MR No.22/2006-2007. It is submit that during period of 1986 the partition made between the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and his brother Hanumaiah the 3rd defendant husband and father of the defendant No.4 to 7, it was entered in name of the plaintiff as his share and the revenue records mutated in the name of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and thereafter he has given up his rights and interest of the said property to the 3rd defendant. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The trial court ignored that the alleged cause of action is stale and barred by limitation. The court below failed to consider that mere mutation entries do not create title and that the plaintif's own pleadings show relinquishment and transfer of rights in 2007. Even if the plaint averments are taken at face value, no enforceable right survives for the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent No.1 has no subsisting right in the property and the present suit is a clear abuse of process of law. The father of the plaintiff, Hanumanthaiah, was allegedly granted occupancy rights under the Inam Abolition Act vide order dated 05.08.1958. It is stated that mutation entries were made in MR No.46/1962-63 in his favour. However, the said document MR No.46/1962- 63 was never pleaded or produced by the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. The same has been concocted and fabricated solely for the purpose of filing the present suit, and was subsequently produced only when Defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said concocted record has been wrongly accepted and misinterpreted by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that earlier, the names of the plaintiff and his deceased brother Hanumaiah were entered in MR No.4/1985-86 on the basis of an alleged panchayath palupatti. The said entry purportedly shows allocation of lands in Sy. No.17 (0-23 guntas), Sy. No.48 (1 acre 3 guntas), and Sy. No.59/2 (1 acre 22 guntas). It is further submitted that earlier, the names of the plaintiff and his deceased brother Hanumaiah were entered in MR No.4/1985-86 on the basis of an alleged panchayath palupatti. The said entry purportedly shows allocation of lands in Sy. No.17 (0-23 guntas), Sy. No.48 (1 acre 3 guntas), and Sy. No.59/2 (1 acre 22 guntas). After publication of Form No.21, no objections were raised, and the mutation was effected as though a partition had taken place in 1986 between the plaintiff and his brother. If the plaintiff truly had any lawful rights, he ought to have approached the competent authority at that relevant time. However, after the lapse of more than forty years, the plaintiff/Respondent No. 1, in collusion with Defendant No.3 and certain revenue officials, concocted a false story and fabricated documents with the sole intention of grabbing the Petitioner's property. Such concocted documents were produced only to mislead the Trial Court. After the death of Defendant No.3's husband, the plaintiff and Defendant No.3 colluded and fabricated records to transfer the khata into the name of Defendant No.3 based on a false consent statement purportedly given by the plaintiff. In that process, the plaintiff even gave up his alleged share of 1 acre 3 guntas in Sy. No.48 in favour of Defendant No.3. Despite the same, the plaintiff has now come forward with a false and untenable claim over the property belonging to Defendant No.1, without having any semblance of right, title, or interest therein. The learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in failing to appreciate and consider the material documentary evidence placed on record by the Petitioner/Defendant No.1. The Trial Court has merely relied upon the unsubstantiated and concocted documents produced by the plaintiff, while ignoring the genuine revenue records, mutation extracts, RTCs, and other documentary evidence clearly demonstrating the lawful ownership and possession of the Petitioner. The Trial Court has failed to properly examine the mutation history. revenue entries, and prior proceedings showing continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the Petitioner and his predecessors in title. Despite specific pleadings and production of certified copies of revenue documents, the Trial Court has mechanically accepted the false version of the plaintiff without conducting a proper verification of authenticity or origin of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has overlooked the fact that the alleged MR. Despite specific pleadings and production of certified copies of revenue documents, the Trial Court has mechanically accepted the false version of the plaintiff without conducting a proper verification of authenticity or origin of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has overlooked the fact that the alleged MR. No.46/1962-63 and MR No.4/1985-86 relied upon by the plaintiff were neither pleaded nor supported by contemporaneous records such as Form No.7, Form No.10, or official RTCs for the corresponding period. The Trial Court failed to note that no entries exist in the Record of Rights to show any lawful title or possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property. The Trial Court's finding is therefore perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, having been based on documents which are prima facie fabricated and unsupported by any statutory record. The impugned order thus suffers from non-application of mind, misreading of evidence, and failure to consider the material documents produced by the Petitioner, which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. The trial court has committed jurisdictional error by refusing to exercise powers vested under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, thereby causing failure of justice to the petitioner. The order of the trial court suffers from material irregularity and jurisdictional error and is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. Error of Law: The trial court failed to appreciate that the plaint, on a meaningful reading, discloses no cause of action. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [ (1977) 4 SCC 467 ] has categorically held that if a plaint is manifestly vexatious and meritless, it should be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Abuse of Process: The trial court overlooked that the respondent had already relinquished/transferred his rights. Continuing the suit amounts to abuse of the process of law. In D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman [ (1999) 3 SCC 267 ), the Supreme Court reiterated that frivolous and untenable suits should not be permitted to proceed. Jurisdictional Error: The trial court acted with material irregularity by refusing to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which is a mandatory duty once the plaint fails to disclose cause of action. Jurisdictional Error: The trial court acted with material irregularity by refusing to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which is a mandatory duty once the plaint fails to disclose cause of action. Precedents Ignored: The trial court failed to follow the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble High Court. In Church of Christ Charitable Trust v. Ponniamman Educational Trust ( (2012) 8 SCC 706 ], it has been held that undervaluation and improper court fee is a valid ground for rejection of plaint. Multiplicity of Proceedings: Unless the plaint is rejected, the petitioner will be compelled to face an unnecessary trial. In M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira ( (1988) 1 SCC 556 ), the Supreme Court held that higher courts must intervene to prevent multiplicity and harassment. The impugned order is contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai (2020) 7 SCC 366 , Sree Surya Developers v. Sailesh Prasad (2022) 5 SCC 736 , Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Udayan Raje Bonsle (2024), and by this Hon'ble Court in Irshad Baig v. Chowramma (2019 (2) KCCR 1034). The Petitioner submit that this Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the said trial court in O.S.No.99/2023 on IA.No.6 filed by the petitioner/Defendant No.1 under order VII Rule 11 of CPC, which was dismissed on 27.09.2025. The said order is now questioned before this Hon'ble Court, as the Petitioner has no other alternative or efficacious remedy except to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court has ample power, authority, and jurisdiction to consider, appreciate, and decide this Revision Petition in the interest of justice. 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that learned Trial Judge failed to note that when there was a ‘jubani parikath’ in the year 1932-33, there was no scope for further partition said to have taken place on 21.06.1986 as the ownership was not there with the father of the plaintiff. 12. Therefore, it is a bogus partition deed, which has to be ignored and the revenue entries are to be preferred, which is not taken note of by the learned Trial Judge while dismissing the application and sought for allowing the revision of question. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment. 12. Therefore, it is a bogus partition deed, which has to be ignored and the revenue entries are to be preferred, which is not taken note of by the learned Trial Judge while dismissing the application and sought for allowing the revision of question. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, plaintiff traces the title based on the re-grant of the land by the Special Deputy Commissioner in view of the Inam Abolition Act. 16. Plaintiff also placed on record revenue entries and there is a partition between the plaintiff and his brother as could be seen from the material on record. 17. Whether it is a bogus partition or not, whether at all the father of the plaintiff had the right in respect of the property or not, whether father of the plaintiff had enjoyed the property during his lifetime or not are all the matters which are required to be thrashed out by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record and in a full-fledged trial. 18. It is settled principle of law and requires no emphasis that at the time of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Courts are not expected to hold mini trial to find out the merits or demerits of the case. 19. Suffice to say that the material on record would not warrant the rejection of the plaint at the threshold in view of the disputed questions involved in the suit. 20. Thus, in the considered opinion of his Court, learned Trial Judge has arrived at the right conclusion which would not call for any interference by this Court in this revision. 21. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. All contentions including the question of veracity of the partition deed dated 21.06.1986 is kept open to be urged during the trial in accordance with law.