Smt. Bhanmathi Vs Smt. Shwetha. S

SRI. R. S. V. RATHNAM AGED 65 YEARS S/O LATE BALASUBRAMANYAM UDIPALYA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560082 LR ALREADY ON RECORD AS PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE PETITION.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(R1, R2, R3, R4 AND R5 SERVED;)

¶26

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2024 PASSED ON I.A.No.5 IN O.S.No.1683/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU (R) DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING I.A.No.5 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:50027 CRP No. 206 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Heard Sri Raghu Prasad B.S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Respondents served and unrepresented.

¶34

Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per

¶35

their original ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶36

Defendant No.3 in O.S.No.1683/2021 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, is the revision petitioner challenging the Order of dismissal of I.A.No.5 dated 06.12.2024 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶37

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶38

A suit in O.S No.1683/2021 came to the filed with the following prayer in respect of a following immovable properties hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’:

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:50027 CRP No. 206 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

PRAYER

¶43

“Wherefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree for partition and joint possession of the Plaintiffs legitimate share of 1/5^th share in the suit schedule properties belongs to the joint family that may be allotted to the share of Sadappa son of late Doddaiah and the decree be drawn to the said extent, declare that the sale deeds dated 21/01/2004 bearing documents No.28612/2003-04, No.28608/2003-04 and 28610/2003-04 all the documents registered in book I, stored in CD No.KEND.2 in the office of the Senior SubRegistrar, Kengeri, Bengaluru, executed by the grantee Doddaiah in favour of the R.S.V.Rathnam i.e., Defendant No.2 is not binding on the Plaintiffs.

¶44

And also pass such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶45

DESCRITPTION OF SUIT PROPERTIES

¶46

a) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.158 measuring 26 guntas situated at Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli-2 Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, and the same is bounded on the;

¶47

East by: land belongs to Ramachandrappa West by: land belongs to Smt. Bhanumathi North by : land belongs to Raghu South by: land bearing Sy.No.161

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:50027 CRP No. 206 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

b) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.161 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli-2 Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, and the same is bounded on the;

¶52

East by: land belongs to Ramachandrappa West by: land belongs to Smt. Bhanumathi North by: land bearing Sy. No.158 South by: land bearing Sy. No. 162

¶53

c) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.162 measuring 2 acres 09 guntas which includes 0.09 guntas of kharab situated at Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli -2 and the same is bounded on the:

¶54

East by: land belongs to Ramachandrappa West by: land belongs to Parvathamma North by: land bearing Sy.No.161 South by: land belongs to Smt. Parvathamma”

¶55

Respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs claim that they are the

¶56

daughters and son of one Sadappa, Son of Doddaiah. It is contended that suit properties are the agricultural lands which are acquired by Sadappa by virtue of the order passed in Case No.42 by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Mysuru Inam Abolition Act and was a tenant under the Inamdar of Kaggalipura for and on behalf of all the

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:50027 CRP No. 206 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

members of the joint family and as a landless person and was cultivating the lands under the Inamdar of Kaggalipura.

¶61

Accordingly, plaintiffs along with other members of the family are in possession and enjoyment of the same as true and lawful owners of the suit properties.

¶62

It is further contented that Doddaiah died on 28.12.2010 leaving behind Sivalingappa, Rathnamma, Sadappa, Kempamma, Nagaraj, Umesh and Nagesh.

¶63

It is further contended that plaintiffs demanded their legitimate share in the suit properties being the coparceners. The same was denied and therefore suit came to be filed.

¶64

Defendant No.3 being the purchaser of the properties from Doddaiah and his sons contended that he is the bonafide purchaser for value of the suit property and the plaintiffs cannot take advantage of the amendment to Hindu Succession Act. As such, suit is per se not maintainable on the ground of limitation and thus sought for rejection of the plaint.

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:50027 CRP No. 206 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Learned Trial Judge, after entertaining the objections of the plaintiffs, dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner/third defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on merits.

¶68

Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner /defendant No.3 is before this Court in this petition.

¶69

Sri Raghu Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that plaintiffs do not possess any right over the suit properties as the alienation has taken place before they could get the right in respect of the suit properties. Further, suit is also barred by limitation having regard to the alienation date and the date of presenting the plaint and thus sought for admitting the revision petition.

¶70

Respondents are served and unrepresented.

¶71

As such, in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶72

8 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:50027 CRP No. 206 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the principles of law enunciated in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020)9 SCC 1 would be squarely applicable to the case on hand.

¶76

Plaintiffs being the daughters and son of Sadappa, are entitled to a share in the ancestral property especially when Doddaiah has got the property through an order of grant from the Special Deputy Commissioner when the Inam Abolition Act came into force. The grant though was in individual name, it is settled principles of law that such grant would enure to the benefit of entire joint family.

¶77

Thus, expressing any further opinion on the merits of the matter, at this stage would affect the rights of the parties in the trial one way or the other.

¶78

Coming to the question of limitation, since the sale deed would not bind the rights of the plaintiffs, the question of limitation that is being urged on behalf of the revision petitioner cannot be countenanced in law, at least at this stage.

¶79

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:50027 CRP No. 206 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Therefore, dismissal of the application by the Trial Court

¶82

which is impugned in the present revision petition needs no interference by this Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction.

¶83

20. Hence, the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

(i) Civil Revision Petition is dismissed .

¶86

(ii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and parties are at liberty to urge all available grounds before the Trial Court in accordance with law.

¶87

Sd/-

¶88

(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶89

kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69

Smt. Bhanmathi v. Smt. Shwetha. S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhanmathi v. Smt. Shwetha. S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt J Shaila Vs Smt Nirmala

Smt K R Satyavathi Vs M/S Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Sri. Chandrashekhara, Vs Smt. H.V. Padma

Shivamurthy Vs Mahadevamma

Dr. C B Kavana Vs Dr.G. Sagar Hangaragi

Sri S.Venkataramana Reddy Vs B.Srinivasa Murthy