Defendant in a partition suit sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, claiming title through a pre-amendment sale deed by one of three sons of an intestate female owner. The High Court held that absent partition, all sons held equal shares and the suit was maintainable; revision 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:31322 CRP No. 146 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 146 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. BALAJAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O LATE MADALAIAH, R/AT MASKAL VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 122.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
W/O LATE RAMAIAH ALIAS RAMANAYAKA,
Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NO.1 TO 11 ARE R/AT MASKAL VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 122.
(BY SMT. KALPANA P.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6 AND R11; R7-R10 – NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT; R12 TO R20 – NOTICE DISPENSEND WITH)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2023 PASSED ON IA IN OS NO.492/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TUMAKURU. DISMISSING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
Defendant No. 7 has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, in O.S. No.492/2018 on the interlocutory application filed by Defendant No. 7 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil
NC: 2024:KHC:31322 CRP No. 146 of 2023
Procedure, 1908, read with Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which resulted in the dismissal of the application.
NC: 2024:KHC:31322 CRP No. 146 of 2023
had been effected between Rudraiah and his brothers, and thus, all three brothers were entitled to equal shares in the suit schedule property. As the property had not been partitioned by metes and bounds, the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable. Should the suit be decreed, Defendant No. 7 retains the right to seek equitable partition and allotment of his vendor's share.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE
RKA
1 issue framed by the court
Was the plaint liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC where defendant No.7's vendor conveyed unpartitioned joint family property before the 2005 amendment to Section 6(1)?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
SRI. BALAJAIAH
SMT LAKSHMAMMA
SMT. RAMALAKSHMAMMA
SMT. GANGAMMA
SRI. RAMESH
SRI. SIDDAPPA
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
