JUDGMENT : S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J. 1. With the consent of both parties, though this matter is posted for filing of paper books, it is taken up for final disposal. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.3 dated 06.03.2023 by the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said application filed by defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC was allowed by the trial Court, which proceeded to reject the plaint, consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents No.1 to 5 and 7 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondents No.1 to 5 and 7/plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit as hereunder: MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 26 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 The plaintiff in the above case submit as follows: 1. The address of the plaintiff for the purpose of court notice, summons etc., of this Hon’ble Court of her counsel Sri.C.N.Venugopal, Advocate, No.33, Ground Floor, 3 rd Cross, Sampige Main Road, Opp.Hallimane, Bangalore-560 003. 2. The address of defendants for the purpose of issuance of court notice, is as shown in the cause title above. 3. The Plaintiff is the absolute owner and having peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing site No.13, Gramatana Khatha No.84/11, measuring to an extent of 30 x 40 feet which is more fully described in the schedule and hereinafter referred to as Schedule Property. 4. The Plaintiff submits that the schedule property originally purchased from her husband Sri.Prakash M through a registered power of attorney and affidavit duly certified by Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore on 22.12.1983 from Sri.Ramakrishnappa S/o.Venkatappa by valuable consideration. The said power of attorney and affidavit are herein produced as Document No.1 and 2. The Plaintiff is producing the genealogical tree of Sri.Ramakrishnappa where the Defendants name figures which is produced by the Defendants in Kamakshipalya Police Station by themselves. The Plaintiff is also herewith producing the RTC and Mutation Register which was in the name of Ramakrishnappa S/o Late Venkatappa. The certified copies of the same issued by the Kamakshipalya Police Station is herewith produced and marked as DocumentNo.3 to5. The Plaintiff is also herewith producing the RTC and Mutation Register which was in the name of Ramakrishnappa S/o Late Venkatappa. The certified copies of the same issued by the Kamakshipalya Police Station is herewith produced and marked as DocumentNo.3 to5. In the life time of Sri.Ramakrishnappa, Sri.Prakash has executed a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff on 23.10.1991 vide document No.4107/1991-92 registered at Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. The said sale deed is herewith produced and marked asDocument No.6. 5. It is submitted that after the execution of the Document No.3, it was noted that the size of the site was not 35 x 70 but it was 40 x 60, to rectify the same husband of the plaintiff Sri Prakash M has executed Registered Rectification Deed on 17.01.2003 vide Document No.22631/2002-03 registered at Sr. Sub Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. The said Rectification Deed is herewith produced as Document No.7. The plaintiff is herewith producing the copy of encumbrance dated 22.11.1991, tax demand register for the year 1990-91, issued by Secretary, Sanegoravanahalli, Tax paid receipt dated 14.11.1991, sanctioned plan bearing No.2194/2270 issued by Administrator, Sanegoravanahalli, Grama Panchayathi. The said documents are herewith produced and marked as Document No.08 to 11. 6. The plaintiff is herewith producing the Tax paid receipt (B Katha) dated 06.02.2014 paid to BBMP, Laggere Sub-Division, Rajarajeshwarinagara Zone, Tax paid receipt for the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010- 2011, 2011-2012, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018- 2019, 2019-2020. The said documents are herewith produced and marked as Document No.9 to 23. 7. The plaintiff submits that out of 40 x 60 measurement, the plaintiff has sold half portion on the southern side of property has been sold to one Sri Venkateshmurthy for a valuable consideration and the certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.03.2011 vide document No.NGB- 1-07577-2010-11 is herewith produced as Document No.24. 8. The plaintiff submits that things being thus, the plaintiff being the absolute owner of the property totally measuring 40 x 60 which was bought by Sri Ramakrishnappa and since 1983 the plaintiff and their family are in absolute and actual possession of the property without any hindrance or interference. The plaintiff is herewith producing the copy of the Photographs of the scheduled property for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court and the same are herewith produced and marked as Document Nos.25a to 25c. 9. The plaintiff is herewith producing the copy of the Photographs of the scheduled property for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court and the same are herewith produced and marked as Document Nos.25a to 25c. 9. The plaintiff submits that even though the Ramakrishnappa was sold the property to various owners by making a layout in Survey No.84/11, and about 24 sites were sold to different site owners way back in the year 1983, by suppressing all these material facts, respondents No.1 to 3 have filed partition suit against Srinivasagowda, S.R. Gopalagowda and other coparsaners of Ramakrishnappa's family with ulterior motive to ditch the right of 24 site owners have filed partition suit in respect of Survey No.84/11. The Hon'ble II Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District in OS.No.1060/2012, vide its order dated 03.08.2019 has passed the following order: “The suit of the defendants filed among each other has been dismissed with cost.” 10. The said certified copy of the judgment and decree in OS.No.1060/2012 is herewith produced and marked as Document No.26. 11. The plaintiff submits that when the defendants have filed OS No.1060/2012 they brought the defendant No.6 Siddaraju and through him the defendant No.1 to 5 tried to interfere by which the defendant intend to grab the scheduled property. At that point of time, the husband of plaintiff Sri Prakash M has filed a complaint on 19.07.2014 vide Petition No.1265/2014. On the basis of the complaint, the police have enquired about the legality of the claim and interference made by the defendant No.6. At that point of time, the defendant No.6 has given a statement wherein he has agreed that he has nothing to do with the scheduled property and he has never interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The certified copy of the petition dated 19.07.2014 and statement of defendant No.6 dated 29.07.2014 are herewith produced and marked as Document No.27 and 28. 12. The plaintiff is beg to produce the certified copy of the consent deed executed by the defendant No.1, 2, 3 in favour of one Sri Nagaraj G in respect of Site No.14 in which the boundaries of Site No.14 mentioned as follows: East by : Road West by : Road North by : Site No.13 South by : Site No.15 13. The plaintiff is producing one more sale deed dated 03.05.2018 executed by Smt.Shobha in favour of D.C. Ganga Swamy in respect of Site No.12 which was sold by the plaintiff in favour of Sridhar, Venkateshamurthy and Shobha. The boundaries of the said Site No.12 is East by: 6 feet common passage, West by: road, North by: remaining portion of Site No.12, South by: Site No.13. It is pertinent to note that this sale deed has been confirmed by the defendants herein. The certified copy of the sale deed dated 03.05.2018 is herewith produced and marked as Document No.29. 14. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff being the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property suddenly on 17.08.2019 call from the police has come when the plaintiff and her husband approached the police and it was “BOLT FROM THE BLUE’ that defendant Smt.Umakumari, Srinivasegowoda, Smt.Shashikala have executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.7 Sri Muniraj.N in respect of Site No. 13A, the schedule of the said site is East by - Road, West by - Road, North by - Site No.13, South by - Site No.14. The certified copy of the sale deed dated 19.06.2019 is herewith produced and marked as Document No. 30. 15. It is worthwhile to note that in the entire vicinity of the layout there is no demarking of Site No.13A and the schedule mentioned in Document No.29 does not tally with any site of the entire layout, apart from this the sale deed which was executed by defendant Smt.Umakumari, Srinivasegowda and Smt.Shashikala does not have any right or title on the schedule property by virtue of the entire layout was sold by late Sri Ramakrishnappa way back in the year 1983 and in view of the judgment dated 03.08.2019 passed in OS No.1060/2012. The entire defendants No.1 to 5 are seized from executing the said deed, hence the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff. 16. It is submitted that, the original owner and father of defendant No.1 to 4 has died on 22.05.1995. The entire defendants No.1 to 5 are seized from executing the said deed, hence the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff. 16. It is submitted that, the original owner and father of defendant No.1 to 4 has died on 22.05.1995. If at all the defendants having any claim over property bearing Survey No. 84/11, measuring 36 guntas which was made layout and already sold to different site owner way back in the year 1983, the defendants in the lifetime of their father they would have filed suit for their claim, but sleeping over the illegal right which the defendants already lost way back in the year 1993 after the lapse of 36 years now claiming the right which was already lost and the same has been stamped by 2 nd Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore District in OS No.1060/2012 which is marked as Document No. 27 in the plaint clearly demonstrate the defendant do not have any right whatsoever either in law or on facts. 17. The plaintiff submits that insofar as the sale deed dated 19.06.2019 executed in favour of N. Muniraju by defendant No. 1, 2 and 4 vide Document No. 31 is a illegal document executed with ill-full mind to grab the legitimate right of the plaintiff, it is worthwhile to note that the schedule of the plaint property and the schedule in Document No. 31 do not tally both are different. Explaining this the plaintiff again filed a complaint with jurisdictional police, Kamakshipalya on 19.08.2019 and on 11.09.2019. For which, the husband of defendant No.3, Sri Prakash, has given a statement stating that without mentioning how Site No. 13A has came into existence making allegations against the plaintiff that plaintiff and her husband have brought goons and threatened them. Then the Kamakshipalya Police have issued NCR 1311/2019. The plaintiff is herewith producing the complaint dated 19.08.2019 NCR No.1184/2019, complaint dated 11.09.2019, statement of husband of defendant No. 3 dated 18.09.2019, NCR No.1311/2019 are herewith produced and marked as Document No. 31 to35. 18. The plaintiff submit transaction between the Ramakrishnappa and M Prakash in the year 1983 was very crystal clear transaction because the husband of plaintiff brought the property by paying valuable consideration to Ramakrishnappa. 18. The plaintiff submit transaction between the Ramakrishnappa and M Prakash in the year 1983 was very crystal clear transaction because the husband of plaintiff brought the property by paying valuable consideration to Ramakrishnappa. For the last 36 years nobody has interfered, that too the plaintiff and her husband have sold half of the property which is bearing Site No.12 to a third person in the year 2011. At that point of time also nobody much less the defendants have interfered. The defendants does not have any right whatsoever either in law or on facts and the one which they are claiming have lost 36 years back and as per the order passed in OS.No.1060/2012, the defendants have legally lost all right over the scheduled property. Things being thus with a ulterior motive to grab the legitimate right of the plaintiff, plaintiff being in the actual and physical possession of the property and this being the actual possession and the status of the case the defendants cannot claim the illegal right over the schedule property by creating a document which is prepared after thought and with a ill-full mind has to be declared as illegal document and same is not binding on the plaintiff in any manner. 19. The cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. 20. The cause of action arose on 22.12.1983, when the defendant No. 1 to 4 father Ramakrishnappa sold the property in favour of Sri M. Prakash, husband of the plaintiff, on 23.10.1991 when Sri Prakash executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. On all dates when plaintiff has paid the tax to the concerned revenue authorities made the Khatha and tax has been collected, on 28.03.2011 date when plaintiff has sold half portion of the schedule property to Sri Sridar and Venkateshmurthy, on 03.08.2019 when Hon’ble II Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore passed the judgment against the children and grandchildren of late Sri.Ramakrishnappa, on 19.06.2019 when defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 have executed sale deed in favour of defendant No. 6 Sri N Muniraju, on 19.07.2014, 19.08.2019, 11.09.2019, when plaintiff filed complaint with the jurisdictional police against the illegal interference of the defendant, on all other dates when defendants have interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit schedule property with a concocted and illegal documents. 21. 21. A fixed court fee has been paid on the memorandum of this plaint as per annexed valuation slip. 22. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not filed any suit or petition on the same cause of action before any other court. PRAYER A. Pass a judgment and decree declaring that the sale deed dated 19.06.2019 executed by defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.6 is not binding on the plaintiff and the same is declared as illegal document. B. Pass judgment and decree restraining the defendants, their henchmen or anybody claiming under them permanently from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. C. Grant such a relief/s if this Hon'ble Court deems fit as the circumstances of the case including the award of costs. SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of the site property bearing No.13, Srinivasanagara, (Srigandhakaval), Sunkadakatte, Bangalore – 5560091, measuring East to West – 40 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded on: East by : Road West by : Road North by : Site No.14 West by : the remaining portion sold to Venkateshmurthy 4. Defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 filed the instant application seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaintiff does not have any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property and that the plaint is liable to be dismissed. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of application filed by the defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 are as hereunder: AFFIDAVIT “I, Muniraju son of Late Narasimhappa, aged about 45 years, No.7, 6 th Cross, Sampige Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-3, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I am the 7 th defendant in the above suit and fully aware of the facts of the case. Hence, I am swearing to this affidavit only my behalf and also on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 6 who have authorized me to swear to this affidavit. I submit that I have filed the detailed written statement along with the defendants 1 to 5. The contentions taken in the said written statement may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit to avoid repetition of facts. 2. I submit that I have filed the detailed written statement along with the defendants 1 to 5. The contentions taken in the said written statement may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit to avoid repetition of facts. 2. I submit that during the life time of Ramakrishnappa, he was the owner in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Survey No.84/11 measuring 36 guntas, situated at Srigandadakavalu village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore as the said property is the ancestral property, therefore he do not have any manner of independent right to deal with the suit schedule property or any portion thereof. After the demise of Ramakrishnappa, the defendants 1 to 5 being the L.Rs. have stepped into the shoes of him and the right, title and interest and possession has been devolved upon the said defendants. The said Ramakrishnappa died in the year 1995. During the life time of Ramakrishnappa, he had formed the layout in the said land. After his demise, he i.e. the husband of the plaintiff Prakash started claiming his alleged right over the site bearing No.12 and 13 on the basis of the alleged GPA said to have been executed by the deceased Ramakrishnappa, even though the said GPA is created by the said Prakash, as the said Ramakrishnappa has not all executed the said GPA in the year 1983. The said GPA is created one in order to knock off the suit schedule property and another property. 3. I submit that on the strength of the alleged GPA, the husband of the plaintiff Prakash executed the alleged sale deed dated 23.10.1991 in favour of the plaintiff who is none other than his wife and thereafter the husband of the plaintiff had executed the alleged Rectification Deed dated 17.1.2003 to the alleged sale deed stated above and thus created another fraudulent document. In this connection, it is submitted that very GPA itself is created by Prakash and thereafter the alleged sale deed is also another concocted and created document, subsequently the alleged Rectification deed dated 17.01.2003. In this connection, it is submitted that very GPA itself is created by Prakash and thereafter the alleged sale deed is also another concocted and created document, subsequently the alleged Rectification deed dated 17.01.2003. In this connection I would like to draw the kind attention of this Hon’ble Court “that the alleged Rectification is dated 17.1.2003, by which time the said Ramakrishnappa the father of the defendants 1 to 5 died way back in the year 1995 itself on 22.05.1995, therefore, it can be easily said that as on the date of the alleged Rectification, the said Ramakrishnappa was no more, as such, said Rectification deed dated 17.01.2003 so also the alleged sale deed dated 23.10.1991 have no legal sanctity in the eye of law and those documents will not enure to the benefit of the said Prakash or his wife/L.Rs. in respect of the suit schedule property and other property.” Hence, by considering the above said facts and circumstances, the claim of the said Prakash or after his death by his L.Rs./Plaintiff is illegal and void in law and there is no legal sanctity in the eye of law. Therefore, the plaintiff will not get any manner of right over the suit schedule property. Under the circumstances, the suit is barred by law and liable to be dismissed. Any further continuation of the suit will be nothing but waste of precious time of this Hon’ble Court and also respective counsels and the parties to this suit. The very suit of the plaintiff is nothing but abusive of due process of law. Moreover the suit is bad in law for the reason that the plaintiff without seeking the relief of declaration, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable, as has been held by the Apex Court of India. 5. I submit that the defendants 1 to 5 being the L.Rs of late Ramakrishnappa, has sold an extent of 30 x 40 feet towards southern side of the suit property out of the total extent of site No.13 measures 40’ x 60’ under the registered sale deed dated 09.06.2019, accordingly, I am in possession and enjoyment of he said property and assigned as site No.13(a). By virtue of the above said contentions and the question of law involved in the suit regarding the title deeds of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property the very suit of the plaintiff is barred by law and liable to be dismissed. 6. I submit that the plaintiff is not in possession nor the alleged owner of the suit schedule property. The defendants 1 to 5 and I have made out a strong prima facie case to prove our case. Under the circumstances, I f the annexed application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, per contra, these defendants will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Wherefore, I most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the annexed application as prayed for in the interest of justice and equity. I the deponent of this affidavit do hereby affirm that this is my name and signature and the contents of my affidavit are true.” 5. The appellant/plaintiff filed her objections to the said application, inter alia contending that the application was not maintainable having regard to the fact that the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC will not be applicable to the facts of the instant case and it is only the plaint averment and the documents produced along with the plaint can be looked into and not the defense of the defendants in the written statement. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the plaint and consequently dismissing the suit by impugned judgment and decree which is assailed in the present appeal. 7. A perusal of the material on record, in particular the aforementioned plaint averments will indicate that the trial Court misdirected itself in accepting the defense urged by the defendants for the purpose of consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC which is impermissible in law. It is a well settled principle that for the purpose of considering the application for rejection of plaint, it is only the plaint averments and the documents produced along with the plaint that can be looked into and the defense of the defendants in the written statement or the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC cannot be looked into for the purpose of considering the request for rejection of plaint. 8. 8. It is also relevant to state that various allegations and counter allegations made by both parties against each other, in the light of the plaint averments would necessarily give rise to disputed questions of law and fact, which have to be decided only after full-fledged trial. Under these circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the fact that the plaint cannot be said to not disclose the cause of action or to be barred by any law for the time being in force, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and dispose of I.A.No.3 and remit the matter back to the trial Court by disposing of I.A.No.3 by leaving open all contentions to be urged before the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit after conducting full-fledged trial. 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 06.03.2023 passed on I.A.No.3 by the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru filed by defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 stands disposed of, by leaving open all contentions urged by both sides on all aspects of the matter, including the contentions urged in I.A.No.3 to be decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial. (iii) The appellant and respondents are directed to appear before the c on 24.11.2025, without awaiting any further notice. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to file interlocutory applications, which shall be considered by the trial Court, in accordance with law. (iv) The parties are directed not to alienate, encumber or create any third party rights over the suit schedule property till 24.11.2025.