Dismissed¶148

Smt Papamma v. Sri Harish

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2025CRP/757/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of plaint; Order VII Rule 11 CPC (incl. clauses (a) & (d)); Section 115 CPC revision; no mini trial at plaint-rejection stage; vendor's title/right to convey not decidable at threshold; lis pendens; Section 52 Transfer of Property Act invoked in revision grounds; prior partition suit O.S.No.179/2007 decreed; FDP.No.1/2009 final decree dated 30.11.2011; registered partition deed dated 14.02.2012; agreement dated 26.07.2013 with P. Munireddy; sale deeds dated 19.04.2007 and 29.08.2007; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRP No. 757 of 2023; revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision petition was dismissed and the Trial Court's order dismissing I.A.No.10 stands undisturbed. ¶148

Smt Papamma Vs Sri Harish — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision petition was dismissed and the Trial Court's order dismissing I.A.No.10 stands undisturbed.

¶148

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly dismissed I.A.No.10 filed by defendant Nos.12 to 14 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.245/2012. +1 more

¶95

Court's answer

The material on record at the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was not sufficient to reject the plaint at the threshold.

¶140

Ratio / Principle

Whether the vendors had title to convey the suit property absolutely in favour of the plaintiff cannot be decided by the Trial Court while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; doing so would amount to holding a mini trial.

¶136

Key takeaways

If ultimately the vendors did not possess the right, title or interest to convey the suit property, the plaintiff would definitely fail in the suit; recording such a finding is for the Trial Court after a full-fledged trial.ratio¶139
The impugned order (dismissal of I.A.No.10) needs no interference, that too in the limited revisional jurisdiction; accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.ratio¶144

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition No. 757 of 2023 (IO) — High Court of Karnataka (single Judge, V Srishananda, order dated 24.11.2025) under Section 115 CPC against the Trial Court's order dated 7.10.2023 dismissing I.A.No.10 (Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rejection of plaint) in O.S.No.245/2012 (Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal). Defendant Nos.12 to 14, sisters claiming equal shares by devolution after their father Pilla Reddy, argued the plaintiff's vendor (Krishnan, under sale deed dated 19.04.2007, allegedly effected during a temporary injunction in the prior partition suit O.S.No.179/2007 and after the FDP.No.1/2009 final decree dated 30.11.2011/partition deed dated 14.02.2012) conveyed no title, so the suit had no cause of action. Held: whether the vendors had title to convey the property cannot be decided at the Order VII Rule 11 stage by holding a mini trial; if the vendors lacked title the plaintiff would fail, and that finding is for the Trial Court after a full-fledged trial; the material on record was insufficient to reject the plaint at the threshold. The impugned order required no interference in the limited revisional jurisdiction; the revision petition was dismissed. No precedent was cited.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 757 OF 2023 (IO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. PAPAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 828, ASHWATHAPA BUILDING, DOWN BAZAR, B.B. ROAD, YELAHANAKA, BANGALORE - 560 064.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O SURYANARAYANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT BILLUR VILLAGE AND POST, BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 563 124.

¶12

SMT PRAMILAMMA W/O NAGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3514, 6TH NETRAVATHI MAIN, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI, IIM POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 076.

¶13

&PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. G.A. VISWANATHA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. HARISH S/O G. SUBRAHMANAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO. 25, 8TH CROSS ROAD, CUBBON PET, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶19

SRI. KRISHNAN S/O K. VENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶20

SMT. PADMAJA KRISHNAN W/O LATE V. KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT VENKATESHWARA CLINIC NEAR PRIYADARSHINI PETROL BUNK, NATIONAL HIGHWAY -7 BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099.

¶21

SRI. K ABHISHEK S/O V KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶22

SRI. K SHASHANK S/O V KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE SUIT, MINOR NOW MAJOR, BOTH ARE R/AT BAVANI ROAD, HEBBAGODI VILLAGE AND POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, BOMMASANDRA, INDUSTRIAL AREA (VIA) ANEKAL TALUK

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099 AND VENKATESHWARA CLINIC, NEAR PRIAYADARSHINI PETROL BUNK, NATIONAL HIGHWAY -7, BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST, ATTIBELEL HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099.

¶26

SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE CHINNANNA, AGED ABOUT 99 YEARS,

¶27

SRI M C JAYARAMAPPA S/O LATE CHINNANNA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶28

SRI M C MARIYAPPA S/O LATE CHINNANNA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶29

SRI. M C NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE CHINNANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶30

SRI. M C KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE CHINNANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶31

SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE CHINNANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶32

SRI. M C NAGARAJU S/O LATE CHINNANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE CHINNANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶36

RESPONDENTS NOS. 5 TO 12 ARE R/AT MARAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,

¶37

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 105.

¶38

SRI. VENKATESH REDDY S/O LATE PILLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NEAR WATER TANK, THIRUPALYA VILLAGE, HEBBAGODI POST, ATTIBELEL HOBLI, BOMMASANDRA, INDUSTRIAL AREA, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099.

¶39

SRI BALAKRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE PILLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT BILLUR VILLAGE, MARDHANAPPALI POST, DENKANIKOTE TALUK, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶40

TAMIL NADU - 635 107.

¶41

SRI. P MUNI REDDY S/O LATE PAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT BANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANDRAPURA POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 104. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R. RAVI SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.10 IN OS NO.245/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE IA NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶45

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

¶46

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶47

ORAL ORDER

¶48

Heard Sri.G.A.Viswanatha Reddy, learned counsel for

¶49

the revision petitioner and Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Siri Rajashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶50

Defendant Nos.12 to 14 are the revision

¶51

petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in O.S.No.245/2012.

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost

¶55

necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶56

3.1. A suit in O.S.No.245/2012 came to be filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 with the following prayer in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as 8suit property9):

¶57

PRAYER

¶58

<WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this Hon9ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree against all the defendants, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for consequential reliefs be pleased to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.179/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge court, at Anekal and ot set aside the orders passed in FDP No.1/2009 and declared same is null and void and consequently registered final decree/partition deed dated 14.02.2012 stored in Book No.1, vide Document No.ABL-1-01076/2012-13 stored in CD No.ABLD106 dated 25.05.2012 is hereby declared as cancelled and for declaration, declaring that the registered

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

agreement dated 26.07.2013 executed by the defendants No.12 to 14 in favour of Sri.P.Munireddy is not binding on the plaintiff and the same is declared as null and void and for consequential permanent injunction against all the defendants restraining them, their agents, supporters, workers, henchmen, coolies, contractors, family members, relatives or anybody claiming under them from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and grant such other reliefs together with cost of the suit as this Hon9ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, equity and law.=

¶63

SCHEDULE

¶64

1. Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.52/2 measuring 0-34 guntas, together with watchman quarters and stone pillars barbed wire fence, bounded on:

¶65

East by: land of Papamma, now land of Smt.Muniyamma

¶66

West by: land of Chinnanna

¶67

North by: Remaining land in the same survey number

¶68

South by: Government halla.

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

2. Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.52/2 measuring

¶72

0-33 guntas together with stone pillars barbed wire fence, bounded on:

¶73

East by: Land of Papamma

¶74

West by: Land of Chinnanna

¶75

North by: Land of Hanumareddy, now land of Muniyamma

¶76

South by: Remaining land in the same survey number

¶77

Both properties situated at Maragondanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District.

¶78

3.2. In the plaint, it is contented that plaintiff is the

¶79

owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed

¶80

executed by defendant No.1 in the said suit by name V. Krishnan now represented by his legal representative - Smt. Dr. Padmaja Krishnan.

¶81

3.3. Plaintiff further contended that agricultural

¶82

lands bearing Sy.No.52/2 measuring 34 guntas and Sy.No.52/2 measuring 33 guntas situated at Maragondanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk,

¶83

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

Bengaluru District which is the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated 19.04.2007.

¶86

3.4. It is also contended that defendant Nos.1 to 11

¶87

delivered the vacant portion of the suit property on the date of registration of the sale and thereafter, plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

¶88

3.5. It is further contention of the plaintiff that revenue entries have been mutated and plaintiff is paying the taxes to the authorities.

¶89

3.6. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.12 to 14 entered appearance and contented that there was a partition suit and there is a decree which has also ended in Final Decree Proceedings and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable.

¶90

3.7. It was also contended that the vendor of the plaintiff did not have the right, title or interest to convey the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable.

¶91

10 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

3.8. Plaintiff opposed the said application by filing written objections.

¶95

Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff on the application filed vide I.A.No.10, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and dismissed I.A.No.10 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by defendant Nos. 12 to 14.

¶96

Being aggrieved by the same, it is defendant

¶97

Nos.12 to 14 who have filed the present revision petition on following grounds:

¶98

That the order of the Trail court rejecting 1.A.No.10 filed under order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint is oppose to law, pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record.

¶99

That the Trail court failed to consider that originally the suit schedule properties bearing Sy. Nos. 52/2 measuring 34 guntas and Sy.No.52/2 measuring 33 guntas of Maragondanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk belonged to Nagi Reddy, purchased under a two registered sale deeds dated 1.7.1962 and sold in favour of Pilla Reddy the father of the defendants namely defendants 12 to 16. The Trail court failed to consider this said aspects while rejecting I.A.10 as impugned herein.

¶100

11 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

That the Trail court failed to consider that after the death of Pilla Reddy and his wife Chikkamma, the defendants 15 & 16 exclusively without the consent or knowledge of the defendants 12 to 14 or party to the sale deeds sold both the properties in favour of Krishnan under a registered sale deed dated 19.04.2007. The Trail court has not at all consider the said aspects while rejecting the application filed under order VII rule 11 (a) & (d) of the code of civil procedure.

¶104

That the Trail court failed to consider that after coming to know of the alienation the defendants 12 to 14 who are non-other than sister of the defendants No. 15 & 16 filed a suit in O.S.No.179/2007 seeking for partition of the said properties against the said Krishnan and his family members and defendant No. 15 & 16. At the time of filing the suit the defendants 12 to 14 got obtained an ex-parte order of temporary injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from alienating the suit schedule properties in favour of anybody. They have also complied order 39 rule 3A of the code of civil procedure in O.S.No.179/2004. The Trail court not at all looked into the said aspects while passing the orders.

¶105

That the Trail court failed to consider that after contest the learned judge decree the suit of the defendants 12 to 14 against Krishnan and defendants No. 15 & 16 decree the suit by allowing their respective shares. Thereafter initiated FDP proceedings in FDP.No.1/2009 by obtaining a final decree and their respective shares by drawing a sketch. The Trail court failed to looked into the said aspects while passing the orders impugned herein.

¶106

12 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

That the Trail court failed to consider that the properties in question are exclusive properties of their father Pilla Reddy. After his death his two daughter ie., the petitioners and their brothers succeeded to the said properties by devolution of law, All are entitle for equal shares. In the instant case brothers defendants 15 & 16 excluded the sisters ie., petitioners executed the sale deed in favour of Krishnan under a registered sale deed dated 19.4.2007. Inturn the said Krishnan sold the schedule properties in favour of the Plaintiff though there was an order of injunction from alienating the suit properties. It is well settled law during the pendency of the suit, if any alienation is made it operates as lis-pendency. The purchaser does not get any right, title or possession under section 52 of the transfer of property act. The Trail court instead of considering the said aspects rejected I.A.No.10 as impugned herein.

¶110

That the Trail court failed to consider that the defendants 12 to 14 obtained the final decree on 30.11.2011 since than the respective shareholders have been enjoying their respective shares. The plaintiff knowingly well that there was already a final decree drawn inspite of that purchased the properties in question under a registered sale deeds. The purchaser ie., the plaintiff does not derive any right, title, interest or possession over the properties in question. The Trail court has not at all consider the legal preposition of law while rejecting I.A.No. 10 as impugned herein..

¶111

It is well settled law the properties in question are self-acquired properties of their father. After the death of father by devolution of law all of them are entitle for equal shares. In the instant case the defendants 15 & 16 having no exclusive right, title, interest or possession to sell the properties

¶112

13 -

¶113

NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

in question in favour of anybody. In the instant case the defendants 15 & 16 sold in favour of Krishnan and others and inturn the said Krishnan sold in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 29.8.2007, though there is an order of temporary injunction from alienating the suit schedule properties filed by them in O.S.No.179/2007, on the file of the senior civil judge and JMFC Anekal against Krishnan and others. In spite of that the said Krishnan sold in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 29.08.2007. The Trail court has not at all looked into the said aspects while passing the order impugned herein.

¶116

It is well settled law when the properties in question got by virtue of devolution of law, the other members of the family have to give their shares. In the instant case after the death of father and mother three daughters and two sons are entitle for equal shares. Sons alone have no right to sell the properties including the shares of the daughters. Under such circumstances if any alienation is made, the purchasers will not get any right, title, interest or possession. Therefore there is no cause of action for the purchaser to file a suit against the members of the joint family who are entitle for a shares in the properties in question. Therefore the very suit filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable in law. Without considering the said aspects the learned judge rejected the I.A.No.10 filed under order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of the code of civil procedure.

¶117

The conclusions arrived at and inferences drawn by the Trail court is one sided and illegal.

¶118

Even otherwise the order of the Trail court is based on conjectures and surmises without considering the pleadings and documents on record.

¶119

14 -

¶120

NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

Sri.G.A.Viswanatha Reddy, learned counsel for

¶123

the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the Trial Court failed to note that the vendor of the plaintiff did not possess the entire right, title and interest in respect of the suit property to convey the same in favour of the plaintiff, as is contended in the plaint, by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 19.04.2007.

¶124

He would further point out that there was an order of injunction and despite the said order of injunction, alienation has taken place and therefore, plaintiff did not

¶125

derive any right, title or interest over the suit property and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶126

Per contra, Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior

¶127

Counsel representing the contesting respondent submits that in the case on hand, Doctrine of lis pendens is not applicable in view of the fact that there was a collusive decree.

¶128

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

He would further contend that whether at all the vendor of the plaintiff had the right, title or interest to convey the suit property is a subject matter of suit which needs adducing of both oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the parties in the pending suit in a full-fledged trial.

¶131

Therefore, mini trial could not have been conducted before the Trial Court which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶132

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

¶133

On such perusal of the material on record, one Pilla Reddy, was the common prepositus of the suit property. The title is traced in the sale deed dated 19.04.2007 by the vendors of the plaintiff which is subject matter of the suit.

¶134

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

Whether at all the vendors had the title in respect of the suit property in conveying the suit property absolutely in favour of the plaintiff cannot be decided by the Trial Court at the time of holding or at the time of deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of

¶137

CPC by holding a mini trial.

¶138

If ultimately, the vendors of the plaintiff did not possess the right, title or interest in respect of the suit property to convey the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, plaintiff would definitely fail in the suit.

¶139

It is for the Trial Court to record such a finding after the full-fledged trial.

¶140

Suffice to say that the material on record at the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was not sufficient to reject the plaint at the threshold by exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

¶141

NC: 2025:KHC:48743 CRP No. 757 of 2023

¶142

HC-KAR

¶143

17 -

¶144

Accordingly, the impugned order needs no

¶145

interference that too in the limited revisional jurisdiction.

¶146

Hence, following:

¶147

ORDER

¶148

Revision petition is dismissed .

¶149

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA)

¶150

JUDGE

¶151

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Dismissal of I.A.No.10 (application filed by defendant Nos.12 to 14 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint) in O.S.No.245/2012.¶44
Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal · 7.10.2023
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.245/2012 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 praying for declaration of absolute ownership and possession of the suit schedule property and consequential reliefs, including setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.179/2007 and the orders in FDP No.1/2009.¶56
Prior proceeding
The plaint seeks cancellation of the registered final decree/partition deed dated 14.02.2012 (Document No.ABL-1-01076/2012-13; CD No.ABLD106 dated 25.05.2012).¶58
Prior proceeding
The plaint also seeks declaration that the registered agreement dated 26.07.2013 executed by defendants No.12 to 14 in favour of Sri.P.Munireddy is not binding on the plaintiff and is null and void.¶62
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff claims title to the suit lands (Sy.No.52/2 measuring 34 guntas and 33 guntas, Maragondanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk) under a sale deed dated 19.04.2007 executed by defendant No.1, V. Krishnan (now dead, represented by his legal representative).¶85
Prior proceeding
On suit summons, defendant Nos.12 to 14 entered appearance contending there was a partition suit ending in decree and final decree proceedings, making the present suit not maintainable; the plaintiff filed written objections (para 3.8) which the Trial Judge entertained.¶89
Prior proceeding
Per the revision grounds: defendants 12 to 14 filed partition suit O.S.No.179/2007 against Krishnan and defendants No.15 & 16, and after contest the suit was decreed allowing their respective shares.¶105
Prior proceeding
Per the revision grounds: FDP proceedings were initiated in FDP.No.1/2009 pursuant to the partition decree, and the defendants 12 to 14 obtained the final decree on 30.11.2011.¶110
Prior proceeding
Per the revision grounds: an ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from alienating the suit schedule properties was obtained in O.S.No.179/2007 (the same ground cites compliance with Order 39 Rule 3A in O.S.No.179/2004, an inconsistency in the source reproduced as printed).¶104
Prior proceeding
Per the revision grounds: defendants 15 & 16 sold the two properties to Krishnan under a registered sale deed dated 19.04.2007 without consent/knowledge of defendants 12 to 14.¶103
Prior proceeding
Per the revision grounds: notwithstanding the temporary injunction, Krishnan sold in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 29.08.2007 (the plaint itself dates the plaintiff's sale deed 19.04.2007; both figures appear in the source and are reproduced as printed).¶115
Prior proceeding
The learned Trial Judge, after hearing arguments in detail on I.A.No.10, dismissed it; being aggrieved, defendant Nos.12 to 14 filed the present revision petition.¶95

Smt Papamma v. Sri Harish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Papamma v. Sri Harish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Vitobha Rukma Bai Devara Bhandaram Vs Sri. Hanumantha Kamath

Pira Scientific (Opc) Pvt. Limited Vs Novo Nordisk India Private Limited

Mailappa Gowda Vs Smt Janaki

Sri. v. M. Shashidar Vs Sri. Vasuki

Hillari Nazarath Vs K H Imtiyaz

Sri S H Rajesh Vs Sri G Narayanaswamy