Allowed

Sri. T. Jayaprakash v. Sri Manu

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024CRP/93/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant challenged rejection of his application to reject a partition plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). The High Court held the properties devolved by intestate succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, so the grandson plaintiff had no right; the plaint was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; I.A.No.2 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC allowed and the plaint stands dismissed.

Sri. T. Jayaprakash Vs Sri Manu — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38781 CRP No. 93 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 93 OF 2019 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

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

¶9

SRI. T. JAYAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE J.THIMMARAYAPPA, NO.53, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, DEFENCE COLONY, 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 038. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.K.V.GIRISH AND SRI.V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATES) AND:

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

SRI. MANU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O M.NANJUNDA ARADHYA, MAHADEVAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 567 149.

¶12

SRI. VINU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, NANJUNDA ARADHYA, MAHADEVAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 149.

¶13

SRI. M. NANJUNDA ARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE MARIYANNA, RESIDENTS OF MAHADEVAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38781 CRP No. 93 of 2019

¶15

JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 149.

¶16

SMT. LEELAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O SRI. NANJUNDA ARADHYA,

¶17

SMT. DEVEERAMMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, D/O LATE MARIYANNA,

¶18

SRI. B.V.NANJUNDA ARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O SMT. DEVEERAMMA,

¶19

SRI. B.V.CHANDRASHEKARA ARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O SMT. DEVEERAMMA,

¶20

SRI.M. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE MARIYANNA,

¶21

SMT. SOUBHAGYA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O M. BASAVARAJU,

¶22

SMT. B. BHARATHI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, D/O M. BASAVARAJU,

¶23

SRI. BALASHANKARA ARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O M. BASAVARAJU,

¶24

SRI. B. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O M. BASAVARAJU,

¶25

SMT. B. BHAGYA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O M. BASAVARAJU,

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38781 CRP No. 93 of 2019

¶27

SMT. MARIBASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O LATE MARIYAMMA,

¶28

SMT. PUSHPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O MARIBASAMMA,

¶29

SRI. RUDRESHA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O SMT. MARIBASAMMA,

¶30

SRI. M. NANDA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE B. MARIYANNA,

¶31

SMT. LINGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O SRI.M. NANDAKUMAR, THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 18 ARE RESIDENTS OF MAHADEVAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 562 149.

¶32

SRI. D.N.BOJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, S/O LATE NANJAPPA GOWDA,

¶33

SMT. LALITHA B GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O D.N.BHOJEGOWDA, THE RESPONDENTS 19 & 20 ARE RESIDENTS OF DAMMANINGALA VILLAGE, SHARAVANABELAGULA HOBLI, CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116.

¶34

SRI. RAVI KUMAR H.A., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE ANJINAPPA, HUNACHUR VILLAGE,

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:38781 CRP No. 93 of 2019

¶37

JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 562 149.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI.V.VIJAYASHEKARA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; NOTICE TO R3 TO R18 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 07.10.2021;

¶40

NOTICE TO R19 TO R21 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 24.06.2024)

¶41

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2018 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.847/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., DEVANAHALLI REJECTING THE IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶42

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

¶43

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

Defendant No. 20 challenges the order passed by the Trial Court, by which the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected.

¶46

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and for a legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. In the plaint, it is averred that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to the plaintiff’s grandfather, B. Mariyanna, who acquired the same by way of a grant certificate issued by the concerned Tahsildar during the year 1942-43. After the demise of B. Mariyanna, his wife, Basamma, and their five children inherited the properties. It is further stated that the children of B. Mariyanna, along with his widow, conveyed the subject properties through a registered sale deed in favor of

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:38781 CRP No. 93 of 2019

¶49

defendant Nos. 17 and 18. Defendant No. 20 purchased a portion of Item No. 2 of the schedule properties.

¶50

Upon entering appearance, Defendant No. 20 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, contending that the subject properties are ancestral properties as admitted by the plaintiff, and therefore, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiff has no legal right to the properties. The Trial Court, however, rejected the application, leading Defendant No. 20 to file this petition challenging the said rejection.

¶51

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties and perused the plaint.

¶52

It is noted in the plaint that the deceased B. Mariyanna was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, and upon his death, he left behind his wife and five children, who are Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. These heirs conveyed the subject properties through a registered sale deed to defendant Nos. 17 and 18.

¶53

In the case of Mallika and Others v. Mr. Chandrappa and Others (2007 ILR 3216), this Hon’ble Court held that under traditional Hindu law, from the moment a son is born, he acquires a share in his father’s ancestral property and becomes a coparcener. However, this position is affected by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As per the said Section, when a male Hindu dies leaving self-acquired property, that property devolves by

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:38781 CRP No. 93 of 2019

¶56

way of intestate succession and not survivorship. Hence, upon the death of the father, the property is inherited by his sons in their individual capacity, and the son’s sons do not acquire any rights as co-parceners.

¶57

A similar legal principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttam v. Saubhag Singh and Others (Civil Appeal No. 2360/2016, decided on 02.03.2016), where the Court held that upon the application of Section 8 of the Act, property devolves solely by intestate succession and not by survivorship. The Apex Court further held that once joint family property has been distributed in accordance with Section 8, the property ceases to be joint family property and is held by the heirs as tenants in common rather than as joint tenants.

¶58

In view of the aforementioned legal principles, it is clear that the children of B. Mariyanna and his wife became the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties upon his demise. Therefore, the plaintiff, who claims to be the grandson of the deceased B. Mariyanna, has no legal right to claim partition or any share in the properties that were left behind by B. Mariyanna. Consequently, the suit for partition filed by the plaintiff is clearly barred by law and should have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.

¶59

The Trial Court, in rejecting the application, failed to properly apply the law to the facts of the case, and as such, the

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:38781 CRP No. 93 of 2019

¶62

impugned order is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i. Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

¶65

ii. The impugned order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in O.S.No.847/2015 on I.A.No.2 is hereby set aside and I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is hereby allowed and consequently, the plaint stands dismissed.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶68

RKA

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Sri. T. Jayaprakash v. Sri Manu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. T. Jayaprakash v. Sri Manu

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 Seebegowda Vs State by Karnataka

Thirtha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Dr. Ajith Venkappa Kanaka Reddi Vs Reserve Bank of India

Sri. Niranjan. S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. H. Narayana Vs Sri. Venkatesh

Smt. M N Sarojamma Vs Smt. R Revathi