JUDGMENT : S. R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.No.519/2015 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.XVI and consequent judgment and decree dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, whereby the said application filed by the respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was allowed by the trial court, which rejected the plaint and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranks before the trial court. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents – defendants for declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule immovable property and that the sale deed dated 28.11.2014 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of 2 nd defendant on the basis of an alleged power of attorney is void and sham document created by defendants by impersonation and not binding upon the plaintiff and for permanent injunction and other reliefs. 5. The defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance through their counsel and in addition to filing their written statement, also filed the instant application I.A.No.XVI under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same did not disclose any cause of action and was barred by law. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiff, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the plaint and consequently, dismissing the suit by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which is assailed in the present appeal. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the trial court committed an error in passing the impugned order rejecting the plaint and consequently, dismissing the suit? 7. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the plaint averments , which reads as under:- “UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 1 OF Code of Civil Procedure The Plaintiff above named submits as follows:- 1. The addresses of the parties for the purposes of issue of summons, process, etc., are as stated in the cause title above. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the plaint averments , which reads as under:- “UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 1 OF Code of Civil Procedure The Plaintiff above named submits as follows:- 1. The addresses of the parties for the purposes of issue of summons, process, etc., are as stated in the cause title above. The Plaintiff may also be served through his counsel Sri. Govinde Gowda, Advocate No. 19, Matha Pithru Nivas, Near Padma Tent House, 1 st Cross, Amruthahalli, Sahakaranagar (P), Bangalore-560092. 2. It is submitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the agricultural land bearing Old Sy. No. 94, New Sy. No. 116 measuring 3 acres 18 guntas situated at Hegganahalli Village, Kundana Hobli Devanahalli Taluk which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder and herein after called as the Schedule property. The plaintiff acquired the schedule property through the grant. Dated 04.07.1998. The Plaintiff was cultivating the schedule property even earlier to the grant and from the very date of the grant the Plaintiff was allowed and continued and permitted to continue in actual possession of the schedules of the schedule property the mutation was also accepted in the name of the Plaintiff and the name of the plaintiff has been entered in the Revenue records. Evidencing the said fact the copies of the grant certificate dated 04.07.1998, mutation register extract, RTC extracts and the tax paid receipts are produced herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. Thus the afore stated documents clearly establish the right, title, interest, and possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property. 3. It is submitted that the father of the 1 st Defendant by name Sonnappa is the direct brother of the Plaintiff. There was a partition in the family and the same was reduced into writing in the year 1980, in which the properties of the joint family were partitioned and pursuant to the same, there was a severance of status. The family of the plaintiff and the 1 Defendant had no kind of relationship whatsoever over the properties except to the properties allotted to their respective shares and the blood relationship. As already stated, the partition had taken place in the year 1980, which is not at all in dispute. The family of the plaintiff and the 1 Defendant had no kind of relationship whatsoever over the properties except to the properties allotted to their respective shares and the blood relationship. As already stated, the partition had taken place in the year 1980, which is not at all in dispute. Whereas, the Schedule property was granted to the Plaintiff in the year1998 after a lapse of 18 years. When such is the case, there was absolutely no connection whatsoever between the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant or his family members in respect of the schedule property. The Plaintiff has even raised the loan on the Schedule Property from the V.S.S.N. Bank Aradheshanahalli, and Canara Bank Devanahalli and the loan is still not cleared and there is clear mentioning in the RTC extract as well as in the encumbrance certificate about the loan having availed on the Schedule property. 4. It is submitted that the 1 st Defendant is very well known for his illegal and criminal activities. In the year 2004, he got issued a notice dated 19.11.2004, as if the partition was not equally effected and called upon the Plaintiff to effect an equal partition, for which the Plaintiff had suitably replied. Thereafter in the year 2006, the 1 st Defendant again got issued a notice dated 18.07.2006, as if there was Memorandum of Settlement between the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant and the Plaintiff had even agreed to execute the necessary documents in favour of the 1 Defendant and as if the Schedule Property had fallen to the share of the 1 st Defendant. This notice was also suitably replied. Thereafter, the 1 st Defendant instituted a false and frivolous suit in O.S. No. 2012/2006 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Devanahalli for the reliefs of Partition and Separate Possession as well as the Permanent Injunction and Declaration in respect of the house properties on the ground that there was a partition in respect of the agricultural lands, whereas no partition had taken place in respect of the house property. This suit is being hotly contested by the Plaintiff herein and his family members who are the Defendants in the said suit and as the 1 st Defendant herein and his children who are the Plaintiffs in the said suit having instituted a frivolous suit, the Plaintiff herein sought for the dismissal of the suit by imposing the exemplary costs as well to initiate the appropriate proceedings against the 1 st Defendant herein. Be that as it may, as already stated there was no transaction between the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant herein in respect of the schedule property in any kind of manner whatsoever. The 1 st Defendant had even made the attempts in the month of March 2013 to cut and remove the euchalyptus trees and to trespass into the schedule property for which the grand son of the Plaintiff by name Balaji had lodged a complaint in Crime No. 39/2013 for which the jurisdiction Vishwanathapura Police have also filed the charge sheet in C.C.No.3280/2013 against the 1 st Defendant and others for the offences punishable under Section 447, 427, 324, 326 read with section 34 of IPC and the said case is still pending. Thus it is very clear that there is a serious enemity between the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant and there was no relationship between them and all along the 1 st Defendant making attempts to harass and knock off the properties of the Plaintiff. Evidencing all these facts the copies of the notice dated 19.11.2004, notice dated 18.07.2006, plaint in O.S. No. 2012/2006 are produced herein for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. Even in the aforesaid O.S.No.2012/2006, the 1 st Defendant herein has referred to the alleged Memorandum of Settlement as if the Plaintiff herein has agreed to execute the necessary documents. The perusal of all these documents clearly speaks that there is no reference whatsoever with regard to any kind of power of attorney muchless the GPA executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 1 st Defendant. The perusal of all these documents clearly speaks that there is no reference whatsoever with regard to any kind of power of attorney muchless the GPA executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 1 st Defendant. When such being the case, to the shock and surprise of the Plaintiff during the first week of May 2015, the 1 st Defendant was asserting in the village that he has managed to create a document in respect of the schedule property and so that unless some sort of compromise is entered into in the suit instituted by him, he would see that the Plaintiff is harassed. This prompted the Plaintiff to approach the office like the office of the Tahasildar, Sub-Registrar etc., and ultimately on verification he came to know that the 1 st Defendant had fraudulently created a sale deed in favour of the 2nd Defendant herein in respect of the schedule property through the Document styled as Sale Deed dated 28.11.2014 by showing him as if he was the GPA holder of the Plaintiff herein and the said document was registered on 03.12.2014 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli vide Doc. No. DNH-1-07189-2014-15, Book-1 stored in C.D. No. DNH-D471 dated 03.12.2014. the Documents having been executed in the name of the Plaintiff herein by showing the 1 st Defendant as the power of attorney holder of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's Grandson B.R. Srinivas had even applied for the copy of the power of attorney under the Right to Information Act and on obtaining the same, the Plaintiff came to know about the fraud played by the 1 st Defendant in creating such a document, since the same was referred to in the Sale Deed, as if the Plaintiff had executed the power of attorney in favour of the 1 st Defendant on 22.02.2005 in order to look after the affairs of the schedule property. 5. It is submitted that the very fact that to the northern side of the schedule property, it is the border of Khamenahalli and no road is existing but in the created GPA and the Sale Deed, it is shown as road. Whereas, to the southern side of there exists a road, but in those documents it is shown as the property of the Patel. This itself clearly establishes that there was no verification of any documents and the documents are hurriedly created. 6. Whereas, to the southern side of there exists a road, but in those documents it is shown as the property of the Patel. This itself clearly establishes that there was no verification of any documents and the documents are hurriedly created. 6. It is submitted that, as already stated, when there were several correspondences like notices between the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant, criminal cases as well as the Civil suit is being seriously conducted, question of claiming that as if the 1 st Defendant was the power of attorney holder of the Plaintiff cannot even be imagined. Neither in the notice of the year 2006, nor in the pleadings of the Civil Court, there is a reference for this alleged GPA. All these documents clearly establish and make out the fraudulent activities on the part of the Defendants herein. The Plaintiff reserves the right of taking/initiating the appropriate criminal proceedings against the Defendants for having played fraud and created the documents. 7. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has never executed any power of attorney either infavour of the Defendant No.1 or infavour of any body. The alleged power of attorney is a concocted and fraudulently created and sham document in order to cause harassment to the Plaintiff and to knock off the schedule property, if possible. The copies of the sale deed dated 28.11.2014, the alleged GPA dated 22.02.2005 and the charge sheet are produced herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. The perusal of the documents produced before this Hon'ble court clearly establish that the Defendants are absolutely nothing to do with the schedule property. The Defendants have joined their hands in order to fraudulently create the documents and thereby to defeat the right and interest of the Plaintiff, if possible. As the Plaintiff has not at all executed any of these documents infavour of the Defendant No.1 and the same are created by impersonating, they are sham documents without having any binging effect on the Plaintiff. Even though the said documents have been created the Defendant No. 1 or the Defendant No.2 have neither acquired any title over the schedule property nor the possession over the same. 8. It is submitted that as already stated the Defendants are absolutely nothing to do with the Schedule Property. Even though the said documents have been created the Defendant No. 1 or the Defendant No.2 have neither acquired any title over the schedule property nor the possession over the same. 8. It is submitted that as already stated the Defendants are absolutely nothing to do with the Schedule Property. However they have already approached the revenue authorities for the change of mutation and other entries based on the fraudulently created sale deed and managed to obtain the mutation on the back of the Plaintiff has already challenged the same. For the last one week the Defendant No.1 and 2 are openly proclaiming that as the sale deed is created infavour of the Defendant No.2 in respect of Schedule land they would see that the further encumbrance is created in respect of the schedule property and by dispossessing the Plaintiff induct the 3 rd parties into the possession unless the Plaintiff comes forward for some sort of settlement and by asserting so they made the attempts to enter upon the Schedule Property. The Plaintiff resisted their illegal acts and did not allow them to enter upon the Schedule Property. Having failed in their attempts the Defendant No. 1 and 2 left the spot by asserting that they would give one week time to the Plaintiff to think over the matter. As there was no reason for the Plaintiff to accede to the illegal demands made by the said Defendants, the Plaintiff did not give much weight for the same. However, on yesterday the Defendants No. 1 and 2 again come near the Schedule Property along with their supporters and made the attempts to dispossess the Plaintiff from the Schedule Property. The Plaintiff had the tough time to resist the illegal acts of the Defendants No. 1 and 2 and with great difficulty the acts of the Defendants were thwarted. Then, the Defendants left the spot not only by asserting that they would come again along with some more persons and see that the Plaintiff is dispossessed from the Schedule Property, but also denied the title of the Plaintiff over the Schedule Property and asserted that they would create further documents. Then, the Defendants left the spot not only by asserting that they would come again along with some more persons and see that the Plaintiff is dispossessed from the Schedule Property, but also denied the title of the Plaintiff over the Schedule Property and asserted that they would create further documents. Having seen the repeated illegal acts of the Defendants No.1 and 2, the Plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police who in turn directed him to seek the remedy before this Hon'ble Court by saying that the matter is of civil in nature. Under the circumstances in order to protect his right, title, interest and possession over the Schedule Property the Plaintiff is constrained to file the above suit Hence, this suit. 9. The cause of action for the suit arose during the first week of May 2015 when the Defendant No.1 asserted the creation of the documents, on 28.11.2014 when the sale deed was created, during the last week and on yesterday when ever the Defendants made the attempts to dispossess the Plaintiff from the Schedule Property and denied the title and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. 10. The Plaintiff has not filed any other suit/s on the cause of action for this suit. 11. For the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued as per the Valuation slip appended to the Plaint. Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and Decree:- a) Declaring that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the Schedule property by holding that the Sale Deed dated. 28.11.2014 registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli vide Doc. No. DNH-1-07189-2014-15, Book-1 stored in C.D. No. DNH-D471 dated 03.12.2014 based on the alleged Power of Attorney is void and sham document created by the Defendants even by impersonating and not binding on the Plaintiff; b) Grant Decree for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, henchmen, followers, supporters and anybody claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Schedule Property. c) Cost of the suit; and d) To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the Property bearing old Sy. No. 94 New Sy. c) Cost of the suit; and d) To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the Property bearing old Sy. No. 94 New Sy. No. 116 situated at Hegganahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, measuring 3 acres 18 guntas, and being bounded on the:- East by : Road West by : Property of Susheelamma North by : Border of Kamenahalli South by : Road VERIFICATION I, V, Rajanna., the Plaintiff herein, do hereby declare that what is stated above in paras of the Plaint are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief.” 8. A perusal of the aforesaid averments made in the plaint will indicate that it is specifically contended by the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the khata was made out in his name and that he was paying tax. It has also been averred that the defendants do not have any right in the suit schedule property in any manner and there was a previous round of litigation in O.S.No.2012/2006 filed by the 1 st defendant against the plaintiff and his family members who are the defendants and contesting the said suit, which is pending adjudication. The plaintiff also contends that only in the first week of 2015, he came to know that the 1 st defendant had executed a registered sale deed dated 28.11.2014 in favour of 2 nd defendant by falsely portraying / showing that the 1 st defendant was the GPA holder of the plaintiff, who came to know about the said fraud just prior to filing of the present suit. In fact, in the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically and categorically averred that he had not executed any GPA in favour of the 1 st defendant and that the plaintiff came to know about an alleged GPA dated 22.02.2005 only when the plaintiff became aware of the aforesaid sale deed dated 28.11.2014 and in this regard, plaintiff specifically contends that the GPA and sale deeds are fraudulent, sham and concocted documents by defendants 1 and 2 and under these circumstances, the plaintiff instituted the instant suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 9. 9. A perusal of the plaint averments is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the same discloses a cause of action and the same cannot be said to be ex-facie barred by limitation warranting invocation of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejection of the plaint. In this context, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial court has come to the erroneous conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation, since the plaintiff had executed a GPA dated 22.02.2005 in favour of the 1 st defendant, more than 10 years prior to institution of the suit without appreciating that in the plaint itself, plaintiff had categorically disputed and denied the alleged GPA and had specifically contended that the same was a fraudulent and concocted document, which was the outcome of impersonation and fraud committed by the defendants. Interestingly, the trial court proceeds to compare the signatures of the plaintiff with the alleged signatures in the GPA for the purpose of rejection of the plaint which is impermissible in law in the light of the well settled position that it is only the plaint averments / documents that were relevant and germane for the purpose of considering an application for rejection of plaint. It is therefore clear that the trial court completely misdirected itself in allowing I.A.No.XVI and rejecting the plaint by improper and erroneous appreciation of the material on record warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.XVI in O.S.No.519/2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, is hereby set aside and I.A.No.XVI stands dismissed by restoring the suit to the file of the trial court. (iii) Both parties are directed appear before the Trial Court on 12.01.2026 without awaiting further notice. (iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the contentions on I.A.No.XVI are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (v) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from 12.01.2026.