Dismissed

Sri.M.B. Narayanaswamy v. Sri.B. Ashwathanarayana

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2024CRP/156/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the challenge against the Trial Court's order rejecting an application to reject the plaint. The petitioner sought revival of a partition deed claim, arguing the grantee held a limited estate under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, while the respondent-suit defendant argued she held an absolute estate.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; no interference with the impugned order of the Trial Court.

Sri.M.B. Narayanaswamy Vs Sri.B. Ashwathanarayana — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:11166 CRP No. 156 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 156 OF 2024 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.M.B. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE K BACHANNA AND LATE NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT MANCHANABALE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANJANEYA A B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI.B. ASHWATHANARAYANA S/O LATE K BACHANNA AND LATE NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT MANCHANABLE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶14

SRI M B NAGARAJU S/O LATE K BACHANNA AND LATE NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT MANCHANABALE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11166 CRP No. 156 of 2024

¶16

SRI B KRISHNAKUMAR S/O LATE K BACHANNA AND LATE NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT MANCHANABALE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101.

¶17

SMT D M MAMATHA W/O LATE M B MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT MANCHANABALE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101.

¶18

KUMARI VARSHINI D/O LATE M B MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT MANCHANABALE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101.

¶19

KUMARI SONIKA M D/O LATE M B MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT MANCHANABALE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101.

¶20

NOTE: THE R-4 TO 6 PLACED EX-PARTE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. HENCE, KINDLY BE DISPENSE THE NOTICE TO RESPONDENT No.4 TO 6.

¶21

MASTER M SHARATH CHANDRA S/O LATE M B MANJUNATH

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11166 CRP No. 156 of 2024

¶23

AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS R/AT MANCHANABALE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101

¶24

MINOR 7^TH RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY COURT GUARDIAN SRI UMESH K, ADVOCATE OFFICE AT NO 2, 2ND FLOOR, N V RAJU COMPLEX, B B ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. P.SUBRAMANYA.R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)

¶27

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2023 PASSED ON IA No.III IN O.S.No.433/2023 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT CHIKKABALLAPURA, REJECTING THE IA.No.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (a) AND READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

1. Sri.B. Ashwathanarayana - the plaintiff instituted a

¶31

suit seeking for a declaration that he and the defendants, who were his siblings, were the absolute owners of property bearing Sy. No.85 (old Sy.No.3/4) measuring 3 acres 32 guntas situated at Ethamakalahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk and District, and also for a declaration that he was entitled to that he had 1/5^th

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11166 CRP No. 156 of 2024

¶33

share in the said property. A declaration was also sought for that the gift deed dated 08.08.2014 was not binding on him and for a consequential decree of injunction.

¶34

The case of Sri.B.Ashwathanarayana was that the

¶35

suit property was the subject matter of the partition deed dated 30.08.1976 which had been entered into by him, his siblings and also his mother, Nanjama and in the said partition, Nanjama was allotted the suit property and there was a clear recital that she only had a right to enjoy the property till her death, and after her death, the property would have to devolve on Sri.B.Ashwathanarayana and the siblings, i.e., the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 and Sri.M.B.Manjunath, the husband and father of defendants No.4 to 7. It was his case that despite this restriction on the right of Nanjama to dispose of the property, she had executed a gift deed dated 08.08.2014 and the same, therefore, did not bind him and he was entitled to succeed to his her as per the terms of the partition.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11166 CRP No. 156 of 2024

¶37

In the said suit, an application was filed to reject the plaint on the ground that Nanjama was given a limited estate in the said property and by virtue of Section 14 the Hindu Succession Act (for short, “the Act”), the same stood enlarged into her absolute estate and therefore, Sri.B.Ashwathanarayana could not challenge the alienation made by her in the form of a gift deed since the property was her absolute property. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court and hence this petition.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Tulasamma¹ to contend that the plaint ought to have been rejected since the partition deed, which is admitted in the plaint only conferred a limited estate on Nanjamma and by virtue of Section 14 of the Act the same stood enlarged into her absolute property and any alienation made by her could not be challenged by the plaintiff.

¶39

1 V.Tulasamma & Ors vs. V.Sesha Reddi (Dead) by L.Rs., 1977 AIR 1944

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11166 CRP No. 156 of 2024

¶41

It is to be stated here that the question as to

¶42

whether Nanjamma was granted a limited estate or a restricted estate and whether Section 14 of the Act would apply, would be dependent on the evidence that is adduced during trial. The plaint cannot be rejected when it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the terms of the

¶43

partition indicated that Nanjamma herself had admitted that on her death the property would devolve on the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Manjunath. If the plaintiff is able to prove the said contentions and also establish that Nanjamma was not having a pre-existing right, then a decree would be granted. If, however, the defendants were to establish that Nanjamma was granted a restricted estate and that stood enlarged into her absolute estate and she was therefore entitled to dispose of the same, the suit will have to fail.

¶44

The Trial Court, in my view, was justified in passing

¶45

the impugned order since the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the defense taken by the defendants. I see no

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:11166 CRP No. 156 of 2024

¶47

¶48

reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Revision

¶49

Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri.M.B. Narayanaswamy v. Sri.B. Ashwathanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.M.B. Narayanaswamy v. Sri.B. Ashwathanarayana

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

Sri Govindaraju Vs the Prl Secretary

C. Shanthamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Ashwathamma Since Dead Represented by Her Lr Sri Purushotham Vs Sri T N Rudresh

Smt Chenddyna Schae Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B P Renukamba Vs the Commissioenr

Smt Manjula T D Vs Smt Kanakavalli