A civil revision petition was dismissed as it lacked merits. The High Court held that the Trial Court correctly refused to reject the plaint under O. VII R. 11, as the allegations of non-execution of a partition deed and limitation were pure questions of fact to be tried.
The civil revision petition was dismissed
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 643 OF 2023 (IO)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT TYAGADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN
NC: 2023:KHC:42856 CRP No. 643 of 2023
OS.NO.79/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the petitioners challenging an order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihar, Davanagere in O.S.No.79/2021 by which, an application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was rejected.
"a) Declaration that; the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property as per the orders of Tahasildar Honnali in
orders of Tahasildar Honnali in C¸Á¸À ¸ÀASÉå: 1187/1998 ¢: 15-08-1998.
b) For Declaration that, the registered a partition deed in SR.No.868/2007-08 dated: 11-07-2007 is not binding on the plaintiff.
c) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents supporters, henchmen, and etc., on their behalf from interfering in plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, in any manner."
illegal partition only in the year 2014-2015 and thereafter
she filed an application before the Tahsildar, Honnalli who issued an endorsement to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, she filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal and directed her to file a civil suit. A revision petition filed before the Deputy Commissioner also met the same fate. She therefore claimed that the partition deed dated 11.07.2007 was brought about by the defendants illegally and that she had neither affixed her signature nor had executed the partition deed. Thus, she sought for the reliefs mentioned above.
beneficiaries under the partition deed dated 11.07.2007, entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Civil Procedure Code, contending that the plaintiff had executed the partition deed and the same is evident from the photographs found on the document. It was also contended that the partition deed was executed in
NC: 2023:KHC:42856 CRP No. 643 of 2023
the year 2007, while, the suit was filed in the year 2021 and consequently the suit is barred by law of limitation.
NC: 2023:KHC:42856 CRP No. 643 of 2023
learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 3.
was claiming title to the property in question in terms of a grant dated 15.08.1998. She claimed that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 were not related to her in any manner whatsoever. She claimed that the partition deed dated 11.07.2007 was entered into between Gowramma wife of Sankappa @ Shivanappa, while, the plaintiff was Gowramma wife of Shivanappa. She therefore, contended that the partition deed dated 11.07.2007 is entered into by the defendants, only to deprive her of her interest in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaint filed cannot be treated to be mischievous or that the cause of action mentioned therein, is a result of clever drafting or illusory.
executed the partition deed dated 11.07.2007. In so far as the contention that the suit barred by time, the right to file a suit for declaration arises only when the right, title and interest is threatened and this being a pure question of fact,
NC: 2023:KHC:42856 CRP No. 643 of 2023
the defendant Nos.2 and 3 could not have made a request to
the Trial Court to consider this as a question of law and reject the plaint.
dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of an application to reject plaint on the ground of limitation, which requires factual determination on execution of a partition deed, constitutes an error apparent on the face o
Whether the plaint alleging a concocted partition deed to deprive the plaintiff of title is based on a cause of action or is illusory.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. SAKAMMA D/O. SANKAPPA @ SHIVANAPPA
SRI. RAJAPPA S/O. SANKAPPA @ SHIVANAPPA
SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O SHIVANAPPA
SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O. SANKAPPA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
