Dismissed

Shri S Rajagopala Reddy v. Smt Aswatha

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2023CRP/684/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's rejection of a plea to reject a partition plaint. The court held that the plaintiffs did not admit a prior partition or a will in their pleadings, so the question of fact must be resolved at trial and the petition lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed.

Shri S Rajagopala Reddy Vs Smt Aswatha — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 684 OF 2023 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. S. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, SON OF LATE E. SHANKARAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, MAJOR, RESIDNG AT NO. 3, TATA SHERWOOD ROAD, E SHANKARAPPA GARDEN, BASAVANAGAR, MARTHAHALLI COLONY, BENGLAURU - 560 017.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. ASWATHA, DAUGHTER OF LATE E SHANKARAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDNG AT NO. 20, AIYAPPA LAYOUT, OPP ISRSUKRUTHI APTS, NEAR VARTHUR POLICE STATION, THIPPASANDRA ROAD, VARTHUR BENGALURU - 560 087.

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶15

SMT. CHAMPA, DAUGHTER OF LATE E SHANKARAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 7, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, L.M. SHASTRI NAGAR, HAL POST BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶16

SMT. BHAGYA, DAUGHTER OF LATE E SHANKARAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT B 01, NATURAL VILLA, CHAMBENAHALLI, DOMASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 560 125.

¶17

SMT. SHARADHA, DAUGHTER OF LATE SHANKARAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 245, AMBATTI, 6TH CROSS, BEHIND DEVI EYE HOSPITAL, HSR SECTOR V., BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶18

SMT. UMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE E SHANKARAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 20, SHAKTI NIVAS, 1ST MAIN, CHANDRA REDDY LAYOUT, S T BED LAYOUT, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 047.

¶19

SMT. AMAYAMMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE BANKADARAYAPPA, MAJOR,

¶20

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶21

RESIDING AT SURIGANAHALLI POST, YELLASANDRA POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶22

SHRI. H.R. RAJESH, SON OF LATE B. NAGARATHNA MAJOR.

¶23

SMT. H.R. RAMYA, DAUGHTER OF LATE B. NAGARATHNA, MAJOR,

¶24

BOTH RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 RESIDING AT NO.401, 3RD FLOOR, LAKEMONT REGENCY, RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY, B SECTOR, BASAVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶25

SMT. SAROJAMMA, WIFE OF LATE SRINIVASA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶26

SHRI. SUBHASHCHANDRA REDDY, SON OF LATE B. SRINIVASA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶27

SHRI. S. JAGADEESH CHANDRA REDDY, SON OF LATE B. SRINIVASA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶28

SHRI .SATISH CHANDRA REDDY, SON OF LATE B. SRINIVASA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶30

SHRI. GIRISH CHANDRA REDDY, SON OF LATE B. SRINIVASA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶31

SHRI. S. PRAFULLA CHANDRA REDDY, SON OF LATE B. SRINIVASA REDDY, MAJOR,

¶32

RESPONDENTS 9 TO 11 All RESIDE AT 301 A, 3RD FLOOR, LAKE MONT ORCHID APATS, 1ST CROSS, L B SHASTRI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶33

SMT. RAJESHWARI G., WIFE OF LATE B. SHAMANNA, MAJOR.

¶34

SHRI. PRAMOD S., SON OF LATE B. SHAMANNA, MAJOR.

¶35

SHRI. VINOD S., SON OF LATE B. SHAMANNA,

¶36

RESPONDENTS 15, 16, 17 ALL RESIDING AT B 408, 4TH FLOOR, FORTUNA BLUE WINGS, TALACAUVERY LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶37

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, WIFE OF LATE B. NARAYANA REDDY MAJOR.

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶39

SHRI. ADARSHA N REDDY, SON OF LATE B. NARAYANA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶40

DR. RAJYASHREE, DAUGHTER OF LATE B. NARAYANA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶41

RESPONDENTS 18, 19, 20 ALL RESIDING AT 1958, CHINANNA NIVAS, 14TH B CROSS, 22ND A MAIN, HASR LAYOUT, SECTOR 1, BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶42

SHRI. JAYARAMA REDDY, SON OF LATE BANKADARAYAPPA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶43

SMT. SNEHA REDDY, DAUGHTER OF SHRI B. JAYARAMA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶44

SHRI. DEEPAK J REDDY, SON OF SHRI B. JAYARAMA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶45

RESPONDENTS 21, 22, 23 ALL RESIDING AT B 404, 4TH FLOOR, FORTUNA BLUE WINGS, TALACAURVERY LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶46

SMT. R. BHAGYA LAKSHMI, WIFE OF LATE B. KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶48

SMT. SHANTALA SHEKAR, DAUGHTER OF LATE B. KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶49

SHRI. BALAJI K REDDY, SON OF LATE B. KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶50

RESPONDENTS 24, 25, 26 ALL RESIDING AT 201, C BLOCK, FORUNA BLUE WINGS, TALACAUVERY LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶51

SHRI. MUDDUKRISHNA REDDY B., SON OF LATE BANKADARAYAPPA, MAJOR.

¶52

SHRI. KARTHIK M., SON OF MUDDUKRISHNA REDDY B., MAJOR.

¶53

SHRI. ABHISHEK M., SON OF SHRI. MUDDUKRISHNA REDDY B., MAJOR.

¶54

RESPONDENTS 27, 28, 29 ALL R/AT B 403, FORTUNA BLUE WINGS, TALACAUVERY LAYOUT, BASAVA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶55

SHRI. JAYANTH REDDY, SON OF RAJAGOPALA REDDY, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO. 3, SHERWOOD ROAD, E SHANKARAPPA REDDY GARDEN, BASAVANAGAR,

¶56

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶57

MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶58

SHRI. S. NAGARAJA REDDY, SON OF LATE E. SHANKARAPPA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶59

SHRI. SANDEEP REDDY, SON OF S. NAGARAJA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶60

MS. DEEPTHI REDDY, DAUGHTER OF S. NAGARAJA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶61

RESPONDENTS 31, 32, 33 ALL R/AT 33, LAKSHMI NILAYA, 1ST PHASE,5TH CROSS, BEHIND BASAVANAGAR BUS STOP, VEERABHADRA NAGAR, MARATHAHALLI COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶62

SHRI. S. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, SON OF LATE E. SHANKARAPPA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶63

SHRI. RAKSHIT REDDY, SON OF S. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, MAJOR.

¶64

MS RASHMI REDDY, DAUGHTER OF CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶65

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶66

RESPONDENTS 34, 35, 36 ALL R/AT NO. 1, SHERWOOD ROAD, E SHANKARAPPA REDDY GARDEN, BASAVANAGAR, MARATAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶67

SHRI. S. VIJAYARAGHAVA REDDY, SON OF LATE E. SHANKARAPPA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶68

MS. ANANYA REDDY, DAUGHTER OF S. VIJAYARAGHAVA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶69

MS. AKANSHA REDDY, DAUGHTER OF S. VIJAYARAGHAVA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶70

RESPONDENTS 37, 38, 39 ALL R/AT 153, JAYASHANKARA DREAM MEADOWS LAYOUT, KUNDALAHALLI, MARATHAHALLI COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶71

SHRI. PARAMAHAMSA REDDY, SON OF SHRI. PARAMAHAMSA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶72

MS. GEETHA G., WIFE OF LATE M. VIVEKANANDA REDDY, MAJOR.

¶73

MS. PADMA, WIFE OF K. MUNISWAMY REDDY, MAJOR.

¶74

MS. SAVITRI, WIFE OF SHRI PRASAD REDDY, MAJOR.

¶75

MS. M. PAPAMMA, WIFE OF SHRI Y.S. KRISHNA,

¶76

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶77

MAJOR.

¶78

MS. M. RUKMINI, WIFE OF SHRI LAKSHMAN REDDY, MAJOR.

¶79

RESPONDENTS 40 TO 45 ALL R/AT 101, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶80

SHRI. SHRAVAN REDDY, SIZZLE PROPERTIES, 290, 6TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK COLONY, MAIN ROAD, DODDA BANASWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶81

SMT. KANAKAMMA, WIFE OF M. RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.58, NEAR RAMA TEMPLE, ANNASANDRAPALYA MAIN ROAD, ANNASANDRAPALYA, HAL POST, BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶82

SHRI. RAJASHANKAR REDDY, SON OF LATE M. RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT 263, 4TH FLOOR, S M MEADOWS, TALACAUVERY LAYOUT, BASAVANAGAR, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶83

SHRI. RAJAPRAKASH REDDY, SON OF LATE M. RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT R 4411, ROSEWOOD BLOCK, GOLDEN WOODS APTS, TALACAUVERY LAYOUT, BASAVANAGAR,

¶84

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶85

MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 037. 50. SHRI. RAJESH REDDY, SON OF LATE M. RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT 402, SILVER SPRINGS APTS, 6TH MAIN,OPP SBI BANK, DODDANAKUNDI, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 037. 51. SHRI. G. SRINIVASA REDDY, SON OF M. GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 52. SHRI. G. ASHWATHNARAYANA REDDY, SON OF SHRI M. GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶86

RESPONDENTS 51 AND 52 BOTH R/AT 58, NEAR RAMA TEMPLE, ANNASANDRAPALYA MAIN ROAD, HAL POST, BENGALURU - 560 017. 53. SHRI. M. NAGARAJ, SON OF LATE E. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 58, NEAR RAMA TEMPLE, ANNASANDRAPALYA MAIN ROAD, HAL POST, BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶87

…RESPONDENTS

¶88

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.II IN OS NO.26018/2022 ON THE FILE OF 74TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU., REJECTING THE IA NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶89

11 -

¶90

NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶91

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the 74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall at Bengaluru in OS No. 26018/2022, by which an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC was rejected.

¶94

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/24th share each in the suit schedule properties and for consequential relief. The plaintiffs claimed that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the daughters and Defendant Nos.28 to 38 are the sons of E.Shankarappa Reddy. They claimed that Erappa was the propositus of the family, which comprised of his sons Sri.Bankadarayappa Reddy, Muniveerappa Reddy, Shankarappa Reddy, Muniswamy Reddy. Amongst the above, Muniswamy Reddy had relinquished his right over the ancestral properties and stayed away from the family. The Defendant Nos.4 to 24 are the legal heirs of

¶95

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶96

Bankadarayappa Reddy, while defendant Nos.39 to 44 are the legal heirs of Muniveerappa Reddy. During the lifetime of Erappa, the joint family estate was managed by his sons and after the death of Sri. Shankarappa Reddy, the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the defendants Nos.28 to 38 were jointly enjoying the properties. The plaintiffs claimed that they too were entitled to a share in the suit properties and that the members of larger joint family were not yielding to their demands to share the suit properties and therefore, the plaintiffs were advised to file the suit partition. They claimed that one of the defendants approached them in April-2022 and enquired about the issuance of notice by them to all other members of the family. The plaintiff No.1 being surprised to know about the notice as it was not issued by them, found that there was a reference made to a Will dated 10.10.2002 executed by late Shankarappa Reddy. The plaintiffs claimed that no such Will was ever executed by their father during his lifetime. They further claimed that the defendant No.28 had filed several suits against the other members of the

¶97

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶98

family in respect of land bearing Sy.No.12/4 and Sy No.12/6 and that in none of these suits the plaintiffs were shown as legal heirs of Shankarappa Reddy. The plaintiffs claimed that another suit in O.S.No.7446/2019 was filed by Sri.Govinda Reddy against the family members and other third parties, in which they were arraigned as parties in the suit. They also allege that defendant No.28 had taken signatures on some blank sheets of papers stating that they were required to be submitted in O.S.No.7446/2019 to procure their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs alleged that except signing those blank sheets of papers, they never appeared in O.S.No.7446/2019 and alleged that the defendant No.28 had misused the signatures to support the contentions in the suit filed in O.S.No.7446/2019. Hence,

¶99

they sought for their share in the suit schedule properties.

¶100

The defendant No.28 entered appearance and

¶101

filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC primarily contending that the plaint did not contain all

¶102

14 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶103

material facts and thus, was based on an incomplete cause of action. He also claimed that the plaintiffs did not dispose the entire assets of the joint family and that there was a prior partition on 31.08.1995 between the father and uncles of the plaintiffs and that Shankarappa Reddy had executed a Will dated 10.10.2002 bequeathing his entire estate to defendant No.28. Therefore, it was contended that the plaintiffs had admitted the execution of the Will dated 10.10.2002, therefore there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to claim their share in the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.28 referred to various documents entered into between him and his brothers in respect of some of the properties mentioned in the suit and claimed that the plaintiffs were all aware of these documents and hence, there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs' suit of partition and the cause of action mentioned in plaint is illusory and is a result of clever drafting.

¶104

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶105

4. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs

¶106

who contended that they have no knowledge about the Will executed in favour of the defendant No.28 and the one setup by the defendant No.28 was fraudulent and no such Will was ever executed by their father. They contended that the grounds raised by the defendant No.28 did not justify the invocation of powers to reject the plaint. Based on the above, the Trial Court considered the contentions of both the parties and in terms of the impugned order dated 11.10.2023, rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.28 has filed this revision petition.

¶107

The learned Senior Counsel representing the

¶108

defendant No.28 contended that the documents mentioned in the plaint namely, the Civil Suit filed by the defendant No.28 against other family members has to be read as part of the pleadings and if done, the plaintiffs are deemed to have knowledge of the partition entered into between the father and uncles of the plaintiffs as well as the

¶109

16 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶110

consequent Will executed by the father of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant No.28. In that event, the plaintiffs will not have any cause of action to sue for partition. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel refers to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable

¶111

Society V/s Ponniamman Educational Trust reported

¶112

in (2012) 8 SCC 706 and contended that the plaintiffs must plead all the facts necessary to enable him to obtain a decree and must produce documents on which the cause of action is based. Since the same is not done in the present case, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the plaint ought to have been rejected.

¶113

A perusal of the plaint discloses that the plaintiffs' claimed that the properties continued with the members of the joint family, as a joint estate. There is no reference to any partition deed entered into between the father of the plaintiffs and their uncles. The plaint does refer to the certain proceedings initiated by the defendant

¶114

17 - NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶115

No.28 against other members of the family. However, the plaintiffs claim that they were unaware of these proceedings, but came to know subsequently that the defendants are dealing with the joint family properties according to their whims and fancies and there were several pending litigations between the family members, by ignoring the rights of the plaintiffs who were entitled to a share in the joint family estate. It is more than clear that the plaintiffs were not parties to the proceedings referred in para.13 of the plaint. Therefore, it cannot be construed that the plaintiffs have admitted the averments made in the plaint filed in the those suits. Therefore, the averments made therein cannot be incorporated into the plaint or the averments made in those plaints cannot be attributed to the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs have independent right, title and interest in the suit properties, they are entitled to establish the same in accordance with law and the plaint cannot be thrown out at the instance of the defendant No.28, on the ground that the plaintiffs were aware of the prior partition between their father and their uncles and

¶116

18 -

¶117

NC: 2023:KHC:41738 CRP No. 684 of 2023

¶118

the consequent Will executed by the father of the plaintiffs

¶119

in favour of the defendant No.28. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs have claimed that no such Will was ever executed by their father in favour of the defendant No.28. This being a pure question of fact, have to be adjudicated after a full fledged trial. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to by the learned Senior Counsel is peculiar to the facts and circumstances of that case and therefore, same is inapplicable to this case.

¶120

In view of the above, this revision petition lacks

¶121

merits and the same is dismissed .

¶122

Sd/JUDGE

¶123

KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT:SNN

Shri S Rajagopala Reddy v. Smt Aswatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri S Rajagopala Reddy v. Smt Aswatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the Range Forest Officer

Sri.Krishnaprasad.v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnaprasad v Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sakhi Bai Vs Sri Prakash

Sri. Lakshman Naik, Vs Smt. Divya

Smt Prabha Chandre Gowda Vs Sri S Prakash