Revision against rejection of an application to reject a plaint in a partition suit challenging a 2004 sale deed as sham. Holding the claim barred by the proviso to amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which saves pre-2004 alienations, the High Court set aside the trial court's order and rejected the plaint.
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:9994 CRP No. 164 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 164 OF 2022 (IO)
BETWEEN:
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
CHANNAKESHAVASWAMY FLOUR MILL
NEAR GOVT PRIMARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT 560001
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.B.S.MANIAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AND THIPPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AND THIPPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NC: 2024:KHC:9994 CRP No. 164 of 2022
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AND THIPPAMMA
ALL ARE R/O GUNDURU BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGLAURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 560001
(BY SRI. MAHESH A S., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-5 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED:13.10.2022; NOTICE TO R-6 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED:06.12.2023)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN OS.NO.501/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (R) DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER RULE 11 (d) OF ORDER 7 OF CPC FOR REJECTIONS OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Respondent No.1 instituted a suit seeking partition
and also for a declaration that the sale deed dated 18.10.2004 executed by her siblings and her mother in favour of defendant No.6 i.e., petitioner herein, was sham,
collusive and a colourable document and that it was not
binding on her.
NC: 2024:KHC:9994 CRP No. 164 of 2022
the petitioner is basing her claim solely on the basis of the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’). Since the proviso to the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Act, saves the alienations that had been effected prior to 20.12.2004, the prayer in the suit to declare that the sale deed executed prior to that date i.e., 18.10.2004 cannot obviously be
*CORRECTED VIDE CHAMBER ORDER DATED:20.03.2024.
entertained. Consequently, the plaint is liable to be rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
HNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a plaint seeking to declare a pre-20.12.2004 sale of coparcenary property sham can be maintained under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
C P Venkatesh
Nagarathnamma
Lakshminarayana
Munigangappa
Krishnappa
Muniraju
N S Sanjay Gowda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
