Disposed

Sri. Rangaraju v. Smt. Susheelamma

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024CRP/521/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant challenged rejection of his Order VII Rule 11 application to reject a partition plaint as time-barred, alleging a fraudulent 1974 sale deed of half the property. The High Court held a plaint cannot be rejected in part and found no illegality in the trial court's order, disposing of the petition with liberty to raise contentions at trial and directing expeditious disposal within nine mont

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. Rangaraju Vs Smt. Susheelamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44472 CRP No. 521 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 521 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RANGARAJU S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NIDASALE VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 123.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE SHIVALINGAMMA, W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT HEMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 433.

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. VIJAYAMMA D/O LATE SHIVALINGAMMA, W/O CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT HEMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 433.

¶14

SMT. SUKHANYA D/O LATE SHIVALINGAMMA, W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT HEMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 433.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44472 CRP No. 521 of 2023

¶16

SRI. H.K. VENKATESHA S/O LATE SHIVALINGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT HEMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 433.

¶17

SMT. PREMA D/O LATE MARIAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT ANNUR VILLAGE, CHIKKARASINAKERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 433.

¶18

SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE MARIAMMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT ARAKESHWARANAGAR, GUTTALU COLONY, OPP JAYALAKSHMI THEATER, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 403.

¶19

SRI. SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE MARIAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT ARAKESHWARANAGAR, GUTTALU COLONY, OPP JAYALAKSHMI THEATER, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 403.

¶20

SMT. RENUKA D/O LATE MARIAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT ARAKESHWARANAGAR, GUTTALU COLONY, OPP JAYALAKSHMI THEATER, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 403.

¶21

SMT. LAKSHMI D/O LATE MARIAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT ARAKESHWARANAGAR, GUTTALU COLONY, OPP JAYALAKSHMI THEATER, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 403.

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44472 CRP No. 521 of 2023

¶23

SMT PUSHPA D/O LATE MARIAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT ARAKESHWARANAGAR, GUTTALU COLONY, OPP JAYALAKSHMI THEATER, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 403.

¶24

SMT.PADMAMMA W/O RAMKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT YEARGANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 433.

¶25

SMT. ROOPA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT YEARGANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 433.

¶26

SRI. KUMARA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT YEARGANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 433.

¶27

SRI H.S. MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NIDASALE VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 123.

¶28

SRI N.S. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NIDASALE VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 123.

¶29

SRI N P CHIKKAIAH @ THAMMAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA @ PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:44472 CRP No. 521 of 2023

¶32

R/AT NIDASALE VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 123.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. SHREESHAIL TURKANI AND SRI. SYED KHADER NAWAZ., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10; V/O/D 15.11.2023, NOTICE TO R11 TO R16 IS D/W)

¶35

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2023 PASSED ON IA 17 IN OS NO.144/2013 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL., DISMISSING THE IA.17 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶36

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

The petitioner, defendant No.4, challenges the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

¶40

The plaintiffs initiated a suit in O.S. No. 144/2013, seeking partition and separate possession of their rightful share, specifically 1/5^th share each, in the suit schedule property, to be divided by metes and bounds. It is alleged in the plaint that half share in the suit schedule properties were fraudulently conveyed to defendant No.3 through a registered sale deed dated 29.8.1974. Therefore, the Petitioner contends that the suit is barred by limitation.

¶41

The plaintiff is claiming a 1/5^th share in the suit schedule property, and the entire extent of the suit property was

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:44472 CRP No. 521 of 2023

¶44

not conveyed to defendant No.3. It is a well-settled principle of law that a plaint cannot be rejected in part solely with respect to the half share conveyed to defendant No.3.

¶45

In rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11, the learned Senior Civil Judge observed that the contentions raised by defendant No.3 regarding the validity of the sale deed and allegations of fraud cannot be considered at this preliminary stage and must instead be determined during trial proceedings. I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, as it rightly held that these issues require thorough examination of evidence, which can only be done at trial.

¶46

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, with liberty reserved for the petitioner to raise all grounds and contentions during the trial.

¶47

The Trial Court is directed to expedite and dispose of the suit within nine months from the next date of hearing.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶50

Sri. Rangaraju v. Smt. Susheelamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. Rangaraju v. Smt. Susheelamma

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

H R Mahesh Vs State by Karnataka

B M Jayanth Vs State by Karnataka

Smt. Tanuja Monnappa Vs the Authorized Officer/Manager

Mr. Krishnappa Vs K. Ramamani

Mrs. Sharfunnissa Vs Mr. Adam Sab

Sri. Suresh Vs Sri. Puttaraju