Dismissed

Sri Mahadevaiah v. Smt Bhagya Since Deceased by Her Lrs

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024CRP/107/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant in a partition suit sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending the plaintiff had no right under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and rights were settled in an earlier compromise suit. The High Court held these questions required trial adjudication and dismissed the revision at admission stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Mahadevaiah Vs Smt Bhagya Since Deceased by Her Lrs — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21689 CRP No. 107 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 107 OF 2023 (IO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI MAHADEVAIAH S/O. LATE KARIYAIAH @ MADAIAH, AND LATE DODDAMADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.54, 3RD CROSS, SAMPIGE LAYOUT, NANJANGUD – 571 301.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. BHAGYA

¶15

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

¶16

SRI. VEERABHADRA, S/O LATE KARIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶17

SRI. MADUSUDAN S/O. SRI. VEERABHADRA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶18

SRI. PRATHAP S/O SRI. VEERABHADRA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21689 CRP No. 107 of 2023

¶20

SMT. SHRUTHI W/O SRI. JAYANTH, D/O SRI. VEERABHADRA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶21

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO. 4001, WARD NO. 17, SRIRAMPURA, NANJANGUD, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 301.

¶22

SMT. VANITHA W/O SRI. VENKATESH SUDHARSHAN, D/O SRI. VEERABHADRA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4001, WARD NO. 17, SRIRAMPURA, NANJANGUD, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 301.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S. NO.684/2016, ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD, AND PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2023, PASSED ON I.A.NO.6, BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD, AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION I.A.NO.6, WITH COSTS OR PASS OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶28

following reliefs;

¶29

Wherefore , the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for records in O.S. No.684/2016, on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud, and be pleased to set aside the order dated 3.1.2023, passed on I.A.No.6, by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud, and be pleased

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21689 CRP No. 107 of 2023

¶31

to allow the said application I.A.No.6, with cots or pass other suitable orders in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

The mother of respondents No.1 to 5 had filed a suit in OS No.684/2016. On the death of the mother respondents No.1 to 5 were brought on record as her legal representatives. The suit being one for partition and separate position. An application had been filed by the petitioner-herein who was the defendant-therein under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. Firstly, on the ground that in view of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the original plaintiff, could not claim a right in the mother’s share and secondly, on the ground that in an earlier suit in OS No.124/2008, a compromise had been entered into on 7.10.2015 and as such no separate suit could be filed.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:21689 CRP No. 107 of 2023

¶35

The said application came to be rejected by a trial Court, it is challenging the same, that the petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the original plaintiff cannot have a right in terms of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on her mother's property which had been allotted to the mother and further submits that all the rights of the parties have been compromised in OS No.124/2008, which cannot be reopened in the present suit. Any grievance that the plaintiff may have, was to be adjudicated in OS No.124/2008 by the plaintiff filing necessary applications.

¶37

A perusal of the record more particularly the averments made in a plaint indicates that though the original plaintiff was defendant No.6 in OS No.124/2008. The plaintiff therein filed a memo to delete her from the array of parties and thereafter a settlement was arrived at. Once the original plaintiff has been deleted from the array of parties,

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21689 CRP No. 107 of 2023

¶39

the question of now contending that she or her legal representatives have to agitate their rights in OS No.124/2008 would not arise, since the parties have chosen to delete her from the array of parties.

¶40

Insofar as the right of the original plaintiff in her mother's property or otherwise, the same would have to be adjudicated only after trial and not at the stage of consideration of an application under Order VII of Rule 11. These aspects have been rightly considered by a trial Court and therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the said order. The petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself

¶41

In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending IA does not survive for consideration. Hence, IA stands dismissed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

Sri Mahadevaiah v. Smt Bhagya Since Deceased by Her Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Mahadevaiah v. Smt Bhagya Since Deceased by Her Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Late Sanna Surappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Tibetan Children Village Vs Sri Muniramu

Mr Asif Vs Smt. B Latha

Sri. Bhagyaraju Vs Smt Prema

Lakshmaiah Vs Chikkamma