Dismissed¶73

Smt S Lakshmidevi v. Viha K

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2025CRP/613/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition; Section 115 CPC; Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d); Section 151 CPC; rejection of plaint at threshold; minor plaintiff; partition suit; joint family property; no previous partition; Hindu Succession Act Section 8; prepositus Shivaramaiah died 02.11.1993; plaintiff unborn at opening of succession; daughter claiming father's (Defendant No.1's) share; not claiming as coparcener; Karnataka HC Bengaluru; O.S No.8138/2023; CRP dismissed; contentions reserved for trial; NC: 2025:KHC:50306.

What did the court decide?

None to the revision petitioners; the impugned order stands. All contentions are reserved to be canvassed during the course of trial, in accordance with law. ¶73

Smt S Lakshmidevi Vs Viha K — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the revision petitioners; the impugned order stands. All contentions are reserved to be canvassed during the course of trial, in accordance with law.

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint filed by the minor plaintiff, who was not born when succession to the prepositus Shivaramaiah opened, is liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that her right to seek partition never accrued, or whether the suit for partition (claiming a share out of Defendant No.1's portion of the alleged joint family properties) is maintainable. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

Since the plaint contains a specific allegation that the property belongs to Shivaramaiah and remains joint family property, in the absence of any previous partition the plaint cannot be thrown out at the threshold by exercising the power vested in the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

The rejection (dismissal) by the Trial Court of the Order VII Rule 11 application is just and proper and requires no interference in this revision petition; accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶68

Key takeaways

On the expressly stated hypothesis ('Assuming') that the property is the individual property of Shivaramaiah, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would come into operation, and the plaintiff's prayer with regard to the share of the first defendant would be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law.obiter¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (V Srishananda, J.), 02.12.2025 — CRP No.613/2025 under Section 115 CPC filed by Defendant Nos.2 to 7 of O.S No.8138/2023 against the order dated 04.06.2025 of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-26), dismissing their IA No.IV under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The plaintiff, a minor daughter of S.Krishna (first son of the common prepositus Shivaramaiah, who died on 02.11.1993), prayed for equitable partition with her share allotted out of Defendant No.1's share, permanent injunctions, a declaration that specified sale/gift deeds are not binding on her share, mesne profits, and Rs.2,00,000/- per month till allotment. Revision petitioners argued her right to partition never accrued as she was unborn when succession opened; respondent counsel pointed out she claims not as a coparcener but in her father's share of the unpartitioned joint family property. Holding: the plaint itself alleges the properties belong to Shivaramaiah and remain joint family property with no previous partition, so it cannot be thrown out at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; further, even assuming the property were Shivaramaiah's individual property, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would apply and the claim to Defendant No.1's share would be considered at trial. CRP dismissed; all contentions reserved for trial.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50306 CRP No. 613 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.613 OF 2025 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT S LAKSHMIDEVI D/O LATE SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.822, 3^RD MAIN ROAD,

¶9

3^RD CROSS, BEHIND GOVERNMENT COLLEGE SRS ROAD, PEENYA BENGALURU NORTH PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES BENGALURU-560058

¶10

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

¶11

SMT. S VIDYA D/O LATE SHIVARAM W/O VISHWANATH GOWDA S.C. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.40/12-6, 22^ND CROSS GOVINDARAJNAGAR VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560 040

¶12

SRI. S SHYAMASUNDAR S/O LATE SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.805, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS BEHIND GOVERNMENT COLLEGE SRS ROAD, PEENYA BENGALURU NORTH PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES BENGALURU-560 058

¶13

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:50306 CRP No. 613 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

SMT. S PADMAVATHI W/O LATE K B CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.822, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, BEHIND GOVERNMENT COLLEGE SRS ROAD, PEENYA BENGALURU NORTH PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES BENGALURU-560058 (SINCE DEAD HER LR'S RESPONDEN NOS.5 AND 6

¶17

SRI KISHORE C S/O LATE K B CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.822, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS BEHIND GOVERNMENT COLLEGE SRS ROAD, PEENYA BENGALURU NORTH PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES BENGALURU-560058

¶18

SMT. PRAJWAL C S/O LATE K B CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.822 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS BEHIND GOVERNMENT COLLEGE SRS ROAD, PEENYA BENGALURU NORTH PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES BENGALURU-560 058

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. CHANDAN B K, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

VIHA K D/O S. KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS REPRESENTED BY

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50306 CRP No. 613 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT.B.PRAMEELA W/O S.KRISHNA D/O BORALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶26

R/AT NO.805, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS BEHIND GOVERNMENT COLLEGE SRS ROAD, PEENYA BENGALURU NORTH PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES BENGALURU-560 058

¶27

MR.S.KRISHNA

¶28

S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.822, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS BEHIND GOVERNMENT COLLEGE SRS ROAD, PEENYA BENGALURU NORTH PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES BENGALURU-560 058

¶29

THIMMESH S/O BILIYAIAH MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE DEVALAPURA HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA – 571 445

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI VIVEK.T.N FOR SRI ABHINAV.R, ADVOCATES FOR C/R IN CP 12316/2025;

¶32

VIDE ORDER DATED 21.11.2025, NOTICE TO PROPOSED R2 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH)

¶33

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.06.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.IV IN OS NO.8138/2023 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:50306 CRP No. 613 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26), REJECTING THE IA NO.IV FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶38

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

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Heard Sri Chandan B.K., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Vivek T.N. for Sri Abhinav Ramanand, learned counsel for caveator/respondent.

¶42

Defendant Nos.2 to 7 in O.S No.8138/2023 on the file of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, are the revision petitioners challenging the Order dated 04.06.2025 dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that plaintiff being the minor daughter of S.Krishna who is the first son of common prepositus Shivaramaiah, who died on 02.11.1993.

¶43

It is the contention of the revision petitioners that the right to seek for partition did not accrue to the plaintiff, as at the time of opening of the succession, plaintiff was not even born. Thus the suit for partition is not maintainable.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50306 CRP No. 613 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Per contra , learned counsel for the contesting

¶47

respondent-plaintiff would contend that plaint prayer is specific that she is not claiming the right in the coparcenary property as a coparcener. But she is claiming the right in the joint family property between Shivaramaiah and other defendants which remained joint in the absence of any previous partition and share is sought for in her father's share who is the first defendant and therefore suit is maintainable.

¶48

Having noticed the said aspect of the matter, learned Trial Judge dismissed the application filed by the defendant Nos.2 to 7.

¶49

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶50

On such perusal, this Court has bestowed its best attention to the plaint prayer which reads as under:

¶51

“Wherefore, for the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:50306 CRP No. 613 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

I. grant a decree of equitable partition and separate possession in the schedule properties by dividing the same into metes and bounds and allot the share of the plaintiff in the property allotted to the share of defendant No.1.

¶56

II. To grant decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, henchmen, GPA Holders, or anybody claiming through them from interfering with with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, item No.12.

¶57

III. To grant decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, henchmen, GPA Holders, or anybody claiming through them from alienating and from creating any third parties interest till allotting the share in the suit schedule properties.

¶58

IV. To grant decree declaring the sale deed dtd.28/8/2017, 15/5/2017, 21/1/2017, Gift Deed dtd.7/6/2017, Gift Deed dtd.21/4/2022, another sale deed Dtd. 15/6/2019, 23/2/2006, and another sale deed dtd.23/2/2006 and such other deeds are documents which are effecting the right of the plaintiff are all not binding effect over the plaintiffs' share.

¶59

V. To grant decree of mesne profit from the date of filing the suit.

¶60

VI. Directing the defendants to pay the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per Month to the plaintiff till the property allotted to the share of plaintiff, in accordance with law.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:50306 CRP No. 613 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

VII. Grant such other orders or directions as may be deemed fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity.”

¶65

Taking note of the fact that there is a specific allegation

¶66

in the plaint that the property belongs to Shivaramaiah and it remains to be joint family property and therefore, in the absence of any previous partition, plaint cannot be thrown out at the threshold by exercising power vested in the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶67

Assuming that it is the individual property of the Shivaramaiah, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would come into operation and the prayer of the plaintiff with regard to the share of first defendant would be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law.

¶68