IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC

AT GOWRIBIDNUR
OS 75 / 2017
PLAINTIFFS …. Sri Narayana Rao & Ors
VERSUS
DEFENDANTS ….. Smt Gangu Bai & Ors

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.4 UNDER

ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE SAID CODE

THE DEFENDANT NO.4 MOST RESPECTFULY SUBMITS AS

UNDER

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking direction

to effect partition and questioning the 1st defendants sale
of self-acquired property, sold to this defendant dated
19.11.2005 after a lapse of 12 years. It is stated that the
plaint is liable to be rejected in accordance with the
provisions of Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. As the plaintiffs left blank cause of action
date in the averments intentionally to obtain favorable
orders from this honorable court, plaintiffs fail to disclose
cause of action with cogent documents against this
defendant calls for rejection.

2. Without prejudice to this defendant assertion that the

instant suit lacks very maintainability in the first place,
plaintiffs willfully salient on provisions on which the
plaintiffs claim relief. Plaintiffs misleading this Hon’ble
Court by claiming 1st defendant’s self-acquired property as
joint family property in the plaint. Since the plaintiffs have
no right on the self-acquired property purchased on
30.12.1958 by 1st defendant individually and 1st defendant
sold the suit scheduled property on 19.11.2005 to this
defendant voluntarily to clear her mortgage loan borrowed
in the year 1972 -73 from PLD Bank, Gauribidnur.
3. It is humbly submitted that, this defendant like to place
facts before this honorable Court to facilitate in dismissing
the ill- conceived suit of partition on self-acquired property
of defendant No.1, given the chronological activities
happened on the suit schedule property.

Defendant No.1 Gangubai Purchased the suit schedule

property through a registered sale deed in No. 2460 dated
30.12.1958 to the extent of 2 acres 20 guntas (one part)
Sale deed produced as Annexure-1.

Defendant No.1 Gangubai mortgaged the suit scheduled

property for the loan account 64/72-73. Mortgaged bond
registration in No.98/73-74 & 99/73-74 signed by Sub
registrar dated 21.09.1973. Produced as Annexures-
2&3

Defendant No.1 Gangubai land in survey No. 7/1 was

acquired 18 guntas by Assistant Commissioner
Chickballapur through a mutation 5/1998-99.Produced as
Annexure-4

Defendant No.1 Gangubai enters in to sale agreement

dated 16.11.2005 with defendant No.4 and collects
rupees 25000.00 as sale advance to clear mortgage. Sale
agreement Produced as Annexure-5.

Defendant No.1 Gangubai payoff the PLD Bank mortgage

loan on 18.11.2005 from the sale advance and obtained
release certificate. Certificate Produced as Annexure-6.

Defendant No.1 Gangubai executed sale deed dated

19.11.2005 in favour of defendant No.4 and collects
balance rupees 100000.00 and hands over the possession.
Sale deed Produced as Annexure-7

Defendant No.4 current year RTC for the suit schedule

property. Produced as Annexure-8
4. It is humbly submitted on the self-acquired property
honorable Supreme Court of India, Decision dated
05.05.2009 in a case of Civil appeal 3241 of 2009 in
Omprakash & Ors V/S Radhacharan & Ors observed in
para 9 of the judgement ‘ The law is silent with regard to
self-acquired property of a woman. Sub-section (1) of
Section 15, however, apart from the exceptions specified
in sub-section (2) thereof does not make any distinction
between a self-acquired property and the property which
she had inherited. It refers to a property which has vested
in the deceased absolutely or which is her own. The self-
acquired property of a female would be her absolute
property and not the property which she had inherited from
her parents’.

5. It is respectfully submitted that, the plaintiffs 1 to 5 and

defendants 1 to 3 are living together in one address as per
the plaint. The defendants 1 to 3 also provided the same
address for sale agreement dated 16.11.2005. It is clear
plaintiffs were aware of sale of the suit scheduled land. I
am sure this court would take all facts in to consideration
including vague averments without specific provisions to
claim relief and importantly no cause of action for the suit.
It seems the plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 1 to 3 joined
together in filing present suit, misleading this Hon’ble
Court, with malafied intention to harass this defendant
after a lapse of 12 years.

6. It is submitted that, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka,

Decision dated 19.07.2016 in a case of RFA 4212 of 2013
in Shakutala & Ors V/S Basavaraj & Ors observed in
para 11 of the judgement ‘We also find that the trial
Court was justified in holding that the plaintiffs colluded
with their father, mother and brother (defendant Nos.1
to 3) in filing the suit to cause loss to defendant No.4,
who was the purchaser of the suit land from the
plaintiffs’ father’.
 7. As per order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C., a plaint shall be rejected
where it does not disclose a cause of action. Further, the
plaintiffs presented vague facts and averments in the
plaint without mentioning proper provisions amounts
abusing the process. The act of the plaintiffs indicative of
plaintiffs malafied intentions. The plaint is liable to be
rejected on these grounds.

8. It is humbly submitted on the present application

honorable Supreme Court of India, Decision dated
04.07.2016 in a case of Civil Appeal No.5540 of 2016
observed in para 6 ‘Once an application is filed under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the court has to dispose of
the same before proceeding with the trial. There is no point
or sense in proceeding with the trial of the case, in case
the plaint (Election Petition in the present case) is only to
be rejected at the threshold. Therefore, the defendant is
entitled to file the application for rejection before filing his
written statement.’

9. It is respectfully submitted accordingly, with a fervent prayer

that the inchoate, time-barred, incompetent, Lack of cause of
action suit is liable to be summarily rejected, with the costs of
the proceedings being awarded.
PRAYER

a) Reject the suit plaint;

b) Order costs in favour of 4th defendant;

c) Pass any other order this Hon’ble Court deems fit in

the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Prayed accordingly

Gauribidnur
Date: 04 /01/2018 Advocate for the 4th Defendant.
 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
AT GOWRIBIDNUR
OS 75 / 2017
PLAINTIFFS …. Sri Narayana Rao & Ors
VERSUS
DEFENDANTS ….. Smt Gangu Bai & Ors

AFFIDAVIT VERIFYING THE APPLICATION

I, C. Nandeesh, aged 60 years, s/o. Sri. Chikkanna, resident of

Posettihalli, Nandhi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk & District Karnataka
State, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I am the 4th Defendant in the aforementioned application

and am fully conversant with the facts of the case. I am
swearing to this affidavit.
2. The contents of paragraphs 1 to 9 of the accompanying
application are all true to the best of my knowledge and
sincere belief.
3. The documents filed herewith as Annexures-1 to 8 are all
true copies of their original.
4. I swear accordingly.

Gauribidnur DEPONENT
Date: 04.01.2018

No. of corrections

Identified by me

Advocate