Dismissed¶116

Jayarama L v. Smt.Gowramma

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2025CRP/431/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of plaint — partition suit — Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 CPC — previous/oral partition plea is a matter of defence to be proved at full-fledged trial — unregistered partition — plaintiffs born when succession opened — Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 relied upon — Section 115 CPC revision dismissed — Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Malavalli — O.S. No. 59/2021 — sale deed dated 11.07.2013 and release deed dated 05.01.2008 not binding — mesne profits (Order XX Rule 12 CPC) — proviso to Section 6(a) Hindu Succession Act argued by counsel — Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru, 17.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; all contentions kept open to be urged in the trial in accordance with law. ¶116

Jayarama L Vs Smt.Gowramma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; all contentions kept open to be urged in the trial in accordance with law.

¶116

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.59/2021 could be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 CPC on the revision petitioners' plea of a previous (oral) partition, given that the plaintiffs were born when the succession opened — i.e., whether the plaintiffs had rights in the suit properties and whether an oral partition excluding them was permissible.

¶111

Court's answer

On perusal of the record, the grounds urged in the revision petition are, at the most, the defence available to the revision petitioners in the suit.

¶107

Ratio / Principle

Since the plaintiffs were born when the succession opened, whether they had the right in the suit properties, and whether an oral partition excluding them was permissible, has to be proved by the revision petitioners in a full-fledged trial.

¶111

Key takeaways

Rejection of the plaint at the threshold is impermissible.ratio¶112
The learned Trial Judge, having taken note of the principle of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma (supra), rightly rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 CPC, and the order needs no interference.ratio¶113

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (V. Srishananda, J.), CRP No. 431 of 2025 (IO), decided 17.11.2025 — Civil revision under Section 115 CPC by defendant Nos. 4 to 6 in O.S. No. 59/2021 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli) against the order dated 03.05.2025 dismissing their application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint in a partition suit in which the plaintiffs claimed 7/9 share in seven suit schedule properties and sought a declaration that a sale deed dated 11.07.2013 and a release deed dated 05.01.2008 were not binding on them. The Trial Court had dismissed the rejection application noting the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma, (2020)9 SCC 1, holding that the pleaded previous partition was not a registered partition and had to be established during trial. Held, dismissing the revision: the grounds urged were at the most defences available to the revision petitioners in the suit; admittedly the plaintiffs were born when the succession opened, so whether they had the right in the suit properties and whether an oral partition excluding them was permissible had to be proved in a full-fledged trial; rejection of the plaint at the threshold was impermissible. All contentions kept open to be urged in the trial in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47090 CRP No. 431 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.431 OF 2025 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

JAYARAMA L

¶9

SON OF LATE LINGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR, 5^TH MAIN, MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571401

¶10

SRI. PRAKASHA.L SON OF LATE LINGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.443/516 KOTE KUMBHARA ROAD, MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA MANDYA DIST – 571430

¶11

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. MAYAMMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE LINGA SHETTY WIFE OF LATE RAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE No.443/516 KOTE KUMBHARA ROAD, MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571430

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. MADHU GOUD P.R, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT.GOWRAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE LINGASHETTY

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47090 CRP No. 431 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

WIFE OF LATE. MAHADEVA B, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, “GOWRISHANAKARA NILAYA” DEVANGAPETE HOSA BEEDI, WARD NO. 15, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT -571 440

¶20

SMT. PADMAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE LINGASHETTY WIFE OF KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2359, 5^TH CROSS, KG KOPPALU, MYSURU -570005

¶21

SMT. PUTTA NINGAMMA WIFE OF LATE LINGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.443/516 KOTE KUMBHARA ROAD, MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA DIST – 571430

¶22

SMT. SAROJAMMA, WIFE OF LATE LINGASHETTY WIFE OF LATE RAJU AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT CARE OF SAVITHA, HMT QUARTERS, BENGALURU – 560013

¶23

SMT SAKAMMA D/O. LATE. LINGASHETTY W/O.LATE MARSHETTY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT CHIKK MULUGUDU GRAMA, KUMBAR STREET MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47090 CRP No. 431 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

SMT. GEETHA.G DAUGHTER OF GAVISHETTY WIFE OF RACHASHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT HUMMATHURU GRAMA, KUDER HOBLI, YELANDUR TALAKU, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571441

¶27

VENKATESHA.G SON OF GAVISHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNAGALLI GRAMA, KUMBAR SHETTY BEEDI, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT -571 440

¶28

MADEVA. G SON OF GAVISHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT DR HEAD POLICE QUARTERS, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571313

¶29

SMT. MALATHI G DAUGHTER OF GAVISHETTY WIFE OF S. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, KUMRASWAMY LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 078

¶30

SMT. VANITHA.G DAUGHTER OF GAVISHETTY WIFE OF MARASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT IKKADAHALLI GRAMA, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANGARA DISTRICT -571440

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47090 CRP No. 431 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3.05.2025 PASSED ON IA No.II IN O.S No.59/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALAVALLI., DISMISSING THE IA No.II FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Heard Sri Madhu Goud P.R., learned counsel for the

¶38

revision petitioners.

¶39

This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondents, in view of the issue to be thrashed out in this revision petition.

¶40

Defendant Nos.4 to 6 in O.S No.59/2021 are the revision petitioners challenging the Order dated 03.05.2025 rejecting application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:47090 CRP No. 431 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

A suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 in O.S No.59/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli, in respect of following properties with following prayer.

¶46

“WHEREFORE, under the above said reasons, facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs most humbly pray that, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass JUDGMENT, & DECREE FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION against the defendants, under the following terms;

¶47

(a) for PARTITION and SEPARATE POSSESSION of the plaintiffs 7/9^th share, in the suit Schedule properties;

¶48

(b) for a DECREE OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION order against the defendants by restraining them, their agents, their power of attorney holders or any one acting on their behalf from alienating or creating any type of encumbrance by way of charge or lien upon the suit schedule property or upon any portion of it until and unless the plaintiffs' legitimate share is ascertained, partitioned and till the plaintiff is put into his separate share and possession;

¶49

(c) That the Sale Deed dated: 11.07.2013, Registered in Book No.I, documents No.MLV-1-01786/2013-14, in Stored in CD No.MLVD-123, in page No.1 to 10, Registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Malavalli by the defendants No.4 in favour of the

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47090 CRP No. 431 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

defendants No. 6 and the is not binding upon these plaintiffs.

¶53

(d) That the Released Deed dated 05.01.2008, executed by the defendants No.4 in favour of the defendants No. 5 is not binding upon the plaintiffs and the is not binding upon these plaintiffs.

¶54

(e) for MESNE PROFITS from the date of the suit till the plaintiffs are put into separate possession of plaintiff's share in the Suit Schedule Agricultural and house building Properties, after holding an enquiry Order XX and Rule 12 of the CPC.

¶55

(f) for cost of the suit.

¶56

(g) to grant any other relief/s that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶57

DESCRIPTION OF THE SUIT PROPERTIES

¶58

ITEM No. 1

¶59

All that piece and parcel of the Agricultural land property Survey bearing No.127/1, measuring together 0.42 guntas, situated at Malavalli Grama, Malavalli Taluk, Khasba Hobli, bounded on:

¶60

East by: Road & Lake

¶61

West by: property belongs to the others North by: property belongs to the others South by: property belongs to the others

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47090 CRP No. 431 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

ITEM No. 2

¶65

All that piece and parcel of the Agricultural land property Survey bearing No.128/measuring together 2.08 guntas, situated at Malavalli Grama, Malavalli Taluk, Khasba Hobli bounded on:

¶66

East by: East by: Road & Lake

¶67

West by: property belongs to the others North by: property belongs to the others South by: property belongs to the others

¶68

ITEM No.3

¶69

All that piece and parcel of the Agricultural land property Survey bearing 591, measuring 0.08 guntas, situated at Malavalli Grama, Malavalli Taluk, Khasba Hobli, bounded on:

¶70

East by: site property belongs to the Venkatappa West by: Road North by: Mahalakshmi Cinema Takes South by: site property belongs to Raju

¶71

ITEM No.4

¶72

All that piece and parcel of the site cum house property No.514/441, old Mangalore tiled house measuring East to West: 38' feet and North to South :16.15' feet, situated at Malavalli Town Pete Beedi, Mallavalli, bounded on:

¶73

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:47090 CRP No. 431 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

East by: remaining portion of the same property

¶76

West by: Road (Oni)

¶77

North by: property belongs to Puttaswamaiah

¶78

South by: property belongs to the Puttaswamaiah

¶79

ITEM No.5

¶80

All that piece and parcel of vacant site No.514/441A, measuring East to West: 34' feet and North to South:49' feet, situated at Malavalli Town Pete Beedi, Mallavalli, bonded on:

¶81

East by: property belongs to Chikkathayamma & Doddathayamma

¶82

West by: remaining portion of site property No.514/441

¶83

North by: property belongs to Puttaswamaiah

¶84

South by: property belongs to the Puttaswamaiah

¶85

ITEM No.6.

¶86

All that piece and parcel of the site cum house No.514/441, measuring East to West: 30' feet and North to South: 40'feet, totally measuring 1200' feet, situated at Malavalli Town, Pete Beedi, Mallavalli, bounded on:

¶87

East by: remaining portion of the house of site No.514/441

¶88

West by: 10 feet of common passage

¶89

North by: property belongs to Puttaswamaiah

¶90

South by: property belongs to the Puttaswamaiah

¶91

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:47090 CRP No. 431 of 2025

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

ITEM No.7

¶94

All that piece and parcel of the site cum house property measuring East to West: 12 X 45' feet and North to South: 11 X 12' feet, totally measuring 672 square feet, situated at Malavalli Town Pete Beedi, Mallavalli, bounded on:

¶95

East by: Oni

¶96

West by: house property belongs to the Raju North by:Oni South by: Oni.

¶97

Revision Petitioners/defendants entered appearance and

¶98

took up a contention that there was a previous partition. Therefore plaintiffs are not entitled for the share in the suit properties. Revision petitioners also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint.

¶99

Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections, noted the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma

¶100

reported in (2020)9 SCC 1 and dismissed the application on the ground that the previous partition is not a registered

¶101

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:47090 CRP No. 431 of 2025

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

partition and same has to be established during the trial by placing necessary evidence.

¶104

Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioners are before this Court in this revision petition.

¶105

Sri Madhu Goud, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the Trial Court misdirected itself in not considering the case of the revision petitioners in proper perspective and did not notice that there was a previous partition. Proviso to Section 6(a) of the Hindu Succession Act should have been applied to the case on hand and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration.

¶106

Having noted the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioners, this court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶107

On such perusal of the material on record, at the most, the grounds in the revision petition are the defence available to the revision petitioners in the suit.

¶108

11 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:47090 CRP No. 431 of 2025

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

Admittedly, when the succession opened, plaintiffs were also born and therefore, whether they had the right in the suit properties, and excluding them, whether the oral partition is permissible or not has to be proved by the revision petitioners in a full fledged trial.

¶112

Therefore, rejection of the plaint at the threshold is impermissible.

¶113

Learned Trial Judge has taken note of the principle of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Vineeta Sharma supra and has rightly rejected the application which needs no interference.

¶114