Bahu S/O Hanamanth Vs Smt. Geetha W/O Basavaraj Yadawad

REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SANJAY S/O. HANAMANT SONAR @ JUMANAL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUDHOL-587313, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SMT. GEETHA W/O. BASAVARAJ YADAWAD, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KODAG LAYOUT, MUDHOL-587313, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶26

BASAVARAJ S/O. RUDRAPPA WALI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PADMAVATHI COLONY, MUDHOL-587313, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶27

SMT. KALAVATI W/O. BASAVARAJ WALI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PADMAVATHI COLONY, MUDHOL-587313, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶28

RUDRAPPA S/O. BASAVARAJ WALI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14225 CRP No. 100011 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

R/O. PADMAVATHI COLONY, MUDHOL-587313, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶32

SUNIL S/O. SHIVAPPA SAMPANNAVAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SIDRAMESHWAR COLONY, BEHIND VINAYKA HOTEL, MUDHOL-587313, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶33

SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. SHIVAPPA SAMPANNAVAR AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SIDRAMESHWAR COLONY, BEHIND VINAYKA HOTEL, MUDHOL-587313, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶34

MALLIKARJUN S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA SAVADI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MAHARAJA COLONY, BEHIND VINAYKA HOTEL, MUDHOL-587313, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. GIRISH A.YADWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. RAHUL S.KUNTOJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 TO R7 ARE SERVED)

¶37

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.12.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL IN OS NO.120/2024 ON IA NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATION IN IA NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC SEEKING REJECTION OF THE PLAINT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14225 CRP No. 100011 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

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

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶44

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶45

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4.

¶46

This petition is filed assailing the order rejecting the petitioners’ application to reject the plaint by invoking Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶47

The suit is for partition and separate possession. The suit is filed by daughter of defendants No.1 and 2. Defendant No.3 is brother of the plaintiff. Defendants No.4 to 9 are the purchasers of the properties.

¶48

The application is filed by defendants No.4 to 9

¶49

before the Trial Court to reject the plaint. Same was not

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14225 CRP No. 100011 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

entertained by the Trial Court. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the premise that the matter requires trial.

¶53

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would urge by referring to paragraph No.4 of the plaint that it is not stated that the properties are the ancestral properties and it is not stated that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 commenced the grocery business. Just by referring that plaintiff's father i.e., defendant No.1 is the karta of the family and by stating that the income from the joint family grocery business is utilized to purchase the properties, the suit is filed claiming partition.

¶54

It is submitted that only after the sale of the properties in 2016, plaintiff in collusion with defendant No.1, has filed the instant suit by cleverly drafting the plaint.

¶55

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶56

plaintiff/respondent would contend that the plaintiff has pleaded that the business managed and run by defendant

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14225 CRP No. 100011 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

No.1 is a joint family business and it need not be necessarily an ancestral business. Whether the plaintiff along with the defendants No.1 to 3 commenced the business is a matter of trial and the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to lead and prove her case.

¶60

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through legal representatives and others¹ and in I.T.C. Ltd. vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others² by way of reply.

¶61

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in G. Nagaraj and another vs. B.P. Mruthunjayanna and others³ .

¶62

1 (2020) 7 SCC 366

¶63

2 (1998) 2 SCC 70

¶64

3 Civil Appeal No.2737/2023

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14225 CRP No. 100011 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

This Court has considered the contentions raised at

¶68

the Bar and perused the records.

¶69

It is noticed that the plaintiff has not contended that the properties are the ancestral properties. However, the contention is that the grocery business carried on by defendant No.1/father of the plaintiff, is the joint family business. The plaintiff also states that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 are the members of Hindu Undivided Joint Family and it is further stated that the income derived from the joint family grocery business is utilized to purchase the properties.

¶70

This being the position, this Court is of the view that a case is made out for a trial. Though learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that it is a case of clever drafting, considering the relationship of the parties, the Court has held that the case is not made out to reject the plaint at the threshold without going for a trial.

¶71

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14225 CRP No. 100011 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

At the same time it is also required to be noticed that defendant No.1 has not contested the suit. It appears that he is supporting the plaintiff. Since the concept of the petitioners has emerged that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 have colluded with each other and if the Court finds that no case is made out after trial, then the Court shall impose cost which shall not be less than Rs.50,000/-.

¶74

It is also required to be noticed that the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the properties are joint family properties as it is well settled position of law and there is a presumption in favour of the self acquisition by defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 in whose name the properties would stand. The Court has to decide the case keeping in mind the well settled principles of law relating to joint family property and self-acquisition. Under these circumstances, Civil Revision Petition is not entertained. However, the observations made above shall be borne in mind while deciding the case on merits. Hence, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed .

¶75