Smt. H T Lakshmi Devi Vs Smt. Venkatalakshmamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. H T Lakshmi Devi Vs Smt. Venkatalakshmamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether item No.1 of the suit property is the absolute property of Kalamma and whether her sale in favour of defendant No.3 was a valid sale — determinable only upon recording of evidence, and not at the Order VII Rule 11(d) threshold stage. +1 more

Court's answer

The defendants' contention that Kalamma became the absolute owner of the suit property cannot be countenanced in law; accordingly, the application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by defendant No.3 came to be rejected before the Trial Court.

Ratio / Principle

Whether item No.1 of the suit property is the absolute property of Kalamma, and whether her sale in favour of defendant No.3 was a valid sale, cannot be decided while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11(d), since that requires recording of evidence.

Key takeaways

The impugned order of the Trial Court cannot be faulted with; consequently the revision petition under Section 115 CPC does not warrant interference.ratio¶53
All the defences available to the petitioner are kept open to be urged during the trial in accordance with law.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru (single Judge, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V Srishananda), 23.10.2025 — CRP No. 500 of 2018 (IO) under Section 115 CPC. The petitioner, defendant No.3 in O.S.No.2849/2014 (admitted purchaser of item No.1), assailed the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru's order dated 18.08.2018 rejecting I.A.No.1/16 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a),(b),(d) r/w Section 151 CPC. Respondents 1–3 (plaintiff sisters) sued for partition of their 1/5th share in schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and a declaration that the sale deed dated 10.04.1995 executed by their mother Kalamma — who allegedly inherited from her mother but predeceased her — in favour of the petitioner's husband late Thimmaiah was not binding on their share. Held: whether Kalamma held item No.1 as absolute owner and whether her sale to defendant No.3 was valid cannot be decided at the Order VII Rule 11(d) stage, as recording of evidence is required; the defendants' contention of Kalamma's absolute ownership cannot be countenanced in law; the impugned order therefore cannot be faulted. Revision petition dismissed; all defences of the petitioner kept open for the trial.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:41904 CRP No. 500 of 2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 500 OF 2018 (IO)

BETWEEN:

SMT. H.T. LAKSHMI DEVI W/O SHRI PUTTA HONNAIAH, PRESENT AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDENT AT NO.31, "SHREETHANA", BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT BIDADI, RAMANAGARUM DIST.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O SHRI RAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT AT NO.27, BYRASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 095.

SMT.PUTTALAKSHMAMMA W/O SHRI GOVINDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDENT AT BANK COLONY, DODDAKALLASANDRA, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 095.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41904 CRP No. 500 of 2018

HC-KAR

SMT. NETHRAVATHI W/O SHRI HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT AT KANTHAPALYA, KAGGALIPURA POST,

BENGALURU - 560 095.

SHRI RAMAIAH

S/O LATE SHRI DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDENT AT AYAPPA NABAR, BANK COLONY, DODDA KALLASANDRA KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 095.

SHRI. SRINIVAS

S/O SHRI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDENT AT AYAPPA NAGAR BANK COLONY, DODDAKKASANDRA KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 095.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M.D. BASAVANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 AND R5 - SERVED)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/16 IN O.S.NO. 2849/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1/16 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a)(b) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41904 CRP No. 500 of 2018

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Shanmukhappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.D.Basavanna, learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos.1 to 3.

The present revision petition is filed by the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.2849/2014. Defendant No.3 purchased item No.1 of the suit properties, challenging the rejection of the application vide I.A.No.1/2016 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC.

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

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41904 CRP No. 500 of 2018

HC-KAR

3.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.2849/2014

with the following prayer:

Wherefore the plaintiffs pray that this Hon’ble Court pass an judgment and decree against the defendants as follows:

a. For partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 1/5^th share by metes and bounds in the suit schedule – A and B properties;

b. Declare that the alleged registered sale deed dated 10.04.1995 is executed by plaintiffs mother in favour of defendant No.3 husband late Thimmaiah is not binding on the plaintiffs in so far as the plaintiffs undivided 1/5^th share is concerned; and

c. To pass such other suitable orders inclusive of costs of the suit in the interest of justice and equity.”

3.2. According to the plaintiffs, suit properties are

the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

3.3. Admittedly, defendant No.3 is the purchaser of item No.1 of the suit property.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41904 CRP No. 500 of 2018

HC-KAR

3.4. According to the defendants, Kalamma during her lifetime, having sold the property, the plaintiffs’ suit insofar as item No.1 of the suit property is per se nonmaintainable, in view of the fact that Kalamma acquired the said property having inherited from her mother. It is a case where the Kalamma predeceased her mother.

Therefore, the contention of the defendants that Kalamma became the absolute owner of the suit property cannot be countenanced in law. Therefore, the application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by defendant No.3 came to be rejected before the Trial Court.

Whether at all, item No. 1 of the suit property is an absolute property of Kalamma; the sale in favour of defendant No. 3 by Kalamma was a valid sale or not cannot be decided while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) which requires recording of evidence.

Under such circumstances, impugned order cannot be faulted with.

NC: 2025:KHC:41904 CRP No. 500 of 2018

HC-KAR

6 -

Hence, the following:

ORDER

i. Revision petition is dismissed .

ii. However, all the defences available to the petitioner is kept open to be urged during the trial in accordance with law.

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA)

JUDGE

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36