Dismissed¶153

Sri Rajendra, v. Sri Muniyappa

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2025RSA/365/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, RSA No. 365 of 2024, decided 24-09-2025 by V Srishananda, J. Second appeal against rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a partition suit dismissed at admission stage; grandson born in 1984, after the 1970 partition, held not entitled to claim as coparcener; substantial questions of law (including on limitation, minority, Articles 109/110, Dahiben (2020) 7 SCC 366) not admitted. Keywords: plaint rejection, Order VII Rule 11 CPC, partition, coparcener, joint family property, Hindu Succession Act Section 8, Limitation Act Articles 64 & 65, substantial question of law, second appeal.

What did the court decide?

None; appeal dismissed as meritless with no order as to costs. ¶153

Sri Rajendra, Vs Sri Muniyappa — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; appeal dismissed as meritless with no order as to costs.

¶153

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff, born in 1984 after the 1970 partition between Jadappa and Muniyappa, can claim the suit property as a coparcener, and whether the rejection of his plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was therefore justified. +1 more

¶144

Court's answer

The plaintiff, having been born in 1984 and thus not born on the date of the 1970 partition between Jadappa and Muniyappa, cannot claim the suit property as a coparcener being the grandson of Muniyappa.

¶144

Ratio / Principle

The learned Trial Judge and the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court supplied cogent and convincing reasons and rightly rejected the plaint of the plaintiff.

¶148

Key takeaways

This Court does not find any good grounds to admit the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law for further consideration.ratio¶149

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (S.100 CPC) against concurrent orders rejecting, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the plaint in a partition suit (O.S.No.787/2014). The plaintiff, son of defendant No.1 (Muniyappa), sought partition and separate possession of Survey No.11/3 (32 guntas), alleging the property was joint family property validly alienable neither by his father to defendants 3-5. The courts below had held that after the 1970 partition between Jadappa and Muniyappa the property became Muniyappa's individual property, that on inheritance it became his absolute property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act so that his son could not question the 1991 sale during his lifetime, and that the 2014 suit was barred by limitation under Articles 64 & 65 of the Limitation Act given the registered sales of 1991 and 2004. The High Court (V Srishananda, J.) held that the plaintiff, born in 1984 and therefore unborn at the time of the 1970 partition, could not claim the property as a coparcener being Muniyappa's grandson, approved the concurrent rejection of the plaint, found no good grounds to admit the appeal on the appellant's proposed substantial questions of law, and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 365 OF 2024 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O MR MUNIYAPPA, RESIDING AT NAGARESHWARA NAGENAHALLI, K NARAYANAPURA, K R PURA HOBLI, KOTHANUR POST, BANGALORE - 560 077.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR K N.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,

¶14

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

MR MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O MR MUNIYAPPA,

¶16

R-1 & R-2 ARE RESIDING AT, N NAGENAHALLI, K NARAYANAPURA, K R PURA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 077.

¶17

MR S ANAND AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE M SHIVANANDAM, RESIDING AT NO. 75, KADIRAYYANAPALYA,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

INDIRANAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 038.

¶22

H M MUKUNDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O SRI MUNITHAYAPPA, R/AT NO. 977 'RAVICHANDRA' HOODI WHITE FIELD ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE - 560 048.

¶23

H M CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O SRI MUNITHAYAPPA, R/AT NO. 977, RAVICHANDRA, HOODI WHITE FILED ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE - 560 048.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.117/2021 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN OS NO.787/2014 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU., ALLOWING THE IA NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

Heard Sri.Praveen Kumar K.N., learned counsel for the appellant.

¶33

This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent.

¶34

Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in this

¶35

second appeal challenging the rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.787/2014 confirmed in RA No.117/2021.

¶36

The facts in the nutshell which are almost necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

¶37

Plaintiff being the son of defendant No.1, filed a suit against his father and his brother, who is defendant No.2 and purchasers of the suit property, who are defendants Nos. 3 to 5 seeking relief of partition and separate

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

possession in respect of the following immovable property

¶42

(hereinafter referred to as suit properties):

¶43

Schedule

¶44

All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing Survey No.11/3 of Nagareshwara Nagenahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 32 guntas and bounded on:

¶45

East by : Pillappa's Land West by : Narayana Swamy Land North by : Papanna's Land South by : Lake and Muniyappa's Land

¶46

According to the plaintiff, the common

¶47

propositus is Sri.Venkatakappa H.C., had a wife by name Bachamma. Said Venkatakappa had 2 children, namely, Jadeppa, uncle of the plaintiff and Muniyappa, father of the plaintiff.

¶48

The branch of Jadeppa is not concerned with the disposal of the present appeal. Muniyappa had a wife by name Narayanamma and couple had 4 children,

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

namely, Nagaveni, Manjunatha, Lakshmamma and Rajendra. 4^th child of the couple is the plaintiff. Manjunatha, 2^nd child of the couple is defendant No. 2 and father of the plaintiff, Muniyappa being the son of Venkatappa, is defendant No.1.

¶52

There was a partition that took place in respect of the suit property between Jedappa and Venkatappa somewhere in the year 1970. Admittedly, the plaintiff was born in the year 1984.

¶53

When the partition took place, there was no other coparceners for the branch of Muniyappa. Therefore, property held by Muniyappa became the individual property of Muniyappa. Muniyappa during his lifetime for the betterment of the family and in order to meet the family necessity, sold the suit properties in favour of defendant No.3 by way of different sale deeds. Rajendra being the son of defendant No.1, laid the claim on the suit properties on the ground that the suit properties are the

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

joint family properties; therefore, defendant No.1

¶58

Muniyappa had no right, title or interest to alienate the suit property in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5 and sought for grant of share.

¶59

Defendant Nos.4 and 5 entered appearance and

¶60

filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that there is no cause of action to file the suit inasmuch as plaintiff cannot maintain the suit when the alleged disruption of the joint family has taken place long ago. The application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing written objection. Learned Judge in the Trial Court after

¶61

hearing the arguments of the parties, allowed the application filed by defendant Nos.4 and 5 and rejected the plaint.

¶62

Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.117/2021.

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

¶67

securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated 13.12.2023, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the rejection of the plaint interalia holding in paragraph Nos. 22 to 25, as under:

¶68

"22. The plaintiff has produced the certified copy of sale deed dated 23091991 through which the defendant No.1, his brother Jadiyappa and the sons of Jadiyappa have sold 2 acres 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.11/3 property in favour of defendant No.3. The contents of said sale deed also discloses that the vendors have delivered physical possession of the property in favour of purchaser. The defendant No.3 by virtue of said sale deed became absolute owner of the purchased property. Then, the defendant No.3 has sold 2 acres in Sy.No.11/3 property in favour of defendant No.4 & 5 through a sale deed dated 19072004 and also delivered its possession. The defendant No.3 since from 2309 1991 was enjoying the purchased property and there

¶69

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

afterwards the defendant No.4 & 5 are enjoying their purchased property since from 19072004. The defendant No.1, his brother and their family members are not enjoying the entire extent in Sy.No.11/3 property since from 23091991. The said sale deeds are duly registered before the Sub Registrar office which is a notice to the publics including the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 and his brother have not at all challenged the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.3 till today. When the family members of plaintiff have lost possession over the disputed property since from the year 1991, then they have to seek recovery of possession within 12 years as per Article 64 & 65 of Limitation Act. The plaintiff has approached the court in the year 2014 i.e. after lapse of 23 years from the date of sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.3. Hence, the present suit is also barred by limitation.

¶73

23. The plaintiff himself has contended that the defendant No.1 has acquired the suit property towards his share after

¶74

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

the death of his grand father Venkatappa. When the defendant No.1 has acquired the suit land after the death of Venkatappa, then it becomes his absolute property as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. The defendant No.1 has already sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.3 in the year 1991 and the plaintiff being the son of defendant No.1 cannot question the same during his lifetime. Therefore, the claim made by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. At the same time, the plaintiff cannot claim share in the property acquired by his father during the lifetime of defendant No.1.

¶78

24. The learned court has discussed in length while allowing I.A.No.2. The learned court has properly applied the provisions of law and rightly allowed I.A.No.2. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 & 5 has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 558 where their lordships have held that after enactment of Hindu Succession Act, when the son inherits property U/s 8 of the Act, he does not take it as karta

¶79

10 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

of his own undivided family but he takes it in his individual capacity.

¶83

25. In the present case also, the defendant No.1 has acquired the suit property after the death of his father Venkatappa as per Section 8 of the Act and it becomes his absolute property. The alienation made by defendant No.1 cannot be questioned by the plaintiff as his son since his father as absolute owner of the property has sold the same to defendant No.3. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above decision are applicable to the facts of the case. The learned court has not committed any error or illegality in rejecting the plaint. The averments of the plaint clearly discloses that the suit is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. The appellant in this appeal has not made out any grounds to interfere with the orders of the trial court. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the ‘ Negative ’ and point No.2 in the ‘ Affirmative ’."

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

12. Being further aggrieved by the same, the

¶88

plaintiff has filed the present appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law:

¶89

GROUNDS

¶90

� The impugned Judgments and decrees of both First Appellate Court and Trail Court are illegal, wrong and contrary to law and facts. The same are opposed to Law facts and evidence also. There are concurrent errors by the respective courts in the aforesaid judgments.

¶91

� Both the courts passed the Judgments agasint the weight of evidence and probabilites and circumstances of the case. The courts passed Judgments contrary to the law and against well settled princples of law and brushed aside the various Judgments on the question of law Involved in the present case.

¶92

� The courts misread, mis Interprected the law and evidence on record. They have not applied correct principles of law to the facts of the case and have reached to wrong conclusions.

¶93

12 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

The appelaltte court and trall court completely erred In dismissing the appeal and rejected plaint without appreciating the actual facts and circumstances and the settled law governing the Mortgages and subject matter.

¶97

� The Impugned order belatedly rejecting the plaint, passed by the trail court is opposed to the facts, the pleadings, the law and weight of documentary and oral evidence supposed to be adduced and to be produced under the facts and circumstances of the case and based on the materials available on record.

¶98

� The Impugned order has been passed hastily without appreciating the actual facts and circumstances and the law governing the subject matter. The court falled to appreciate the plaint pleadings and adopted a short cut method to dispose of the case without conducting any trail. The trail court deprived the appellantplaintiff to substantiate his case.

¶99

� The reasoning of trail court appellate court while in allowing the IA and rejecting the plaint is erroneous and blased one.

¶100

13 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

The trial court and appellate court wrongly appreciated the provision of order VII Rule 11 and also various other settled law governing the subject matter.

¶104

The courts erroneously held that the plaintiff is not having any cause of action and wrongly appreciated the various decisions and failed to appreciate the settled law governing the subject matter.

¶105

That in paragraph number 32 of impugned order the trail court wrongly appreciated the very provisions of Limitation Act Ignoring the law governing commencement /starting point of limitation when admittedly the plaintiff was minor as on the date of alienation is made.

¶106

The courts below completely erred in rejecting plaint without giving opportunity to plaintiff to lead evidence and prove his case.

¶107

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT ARISE

¶108

FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS

¶109

HONOURABLE COURT:

¶110

1. Whether both the courts are right and proper in dismissing the suit and appeal without

¶111

14 -

¶112

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

appreciating the facts and law governing the subject matter?

¶115

2. The courts below are correct in rejecting the plaint the suit and appeal without affording any opportunity to plaintiff to lead evidence and framing issues to substantiate his case?

¶116

3. Whether the observation of courts that there is no cause of action to file suit is incorrect?.

¶117

4. Whether the Dahiben case (2020) 7 SCC 366 is applicable to facts and circumstances of the case?.

¶118

5. Whether the present suit be rejected as sham litigation when plaintiffs right by birth and his right over the suit schedule property can be adjudicated only through present litigation and not otherwise?.

¶119

6. The courts are right in strangely adjudicating the appellantPlaintiff's case without giving him necessary opportunity as contemplated under the law to lead his evidence and shockingly well before the trail, while dealing on an application filed under order VII Rule 11 CPC. The question of acquisition of legal right on certain facts and circumstances, existence or nonexistence of legal necessity to allenate is not a question of

¶120

15 -

¶121

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

law and could be adjudicated only after full fledged trail. So also the question of limitation?

¶124

7. The courts are right in not appreciating that the commencement of cause of action under article 109 or 110 is from the date of Knowledge which can be decided only after trail? That in paragraph number 32 of impugned order the trail court wrongly appreciated the very provisions of Limitation Act Ignoring the law governing commencement /starting point of limitation when admittedly the plaintiff was minor as on the date of alienation is made.

¶125

8. The court right in not to appreciate and note that the plaintiff was minor when allenation was taken place?. The court below completely erred in rejecting plaint without giving opportunity to plaintiff to lead evidence and prove his case.

¶126

9. Whether the courts right in not appreaciating the following authorities cited and the ration laid down by the courts are wrongly appreciated by trail court and proceeded to reject the plaint without affording any opportunity to substantiate his case during trail. The appellant plaintiff cited the following authorities viz,

¶127

1. AIR 1030 Allahabad 379(1)

¶128

2. AIR 1964 SC 1385

¶129

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

3. 1970 (3) SCC 722

¶132

4. AIR 2006 SC 3672

¶133

5. SLP (civil 2018220184 of 2003 Dated 1708 2005

¶134

6. Civil Rvn Ptn 200032 of 2016

¶135

10. Whether the IA III Filed by defendants 4 and 5 to tbe dismissed and appeal filed by plaintiff is to be allowed?

¶136

Sri Praveen Kumar K.M., learned counsel for

¶137

the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not considered the fact that there was no necessity to alienate the suit properly by defendant No.1 as Plaintiff and defendant No.2 were also having right in respect of the suit property. Thus, rejection of the plaint has resulted in grave injustice and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

¶138

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶139

17 -

¶140

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that property earlier belonged to the common propositus, by name, Sri. Venkatappa. He had two sons namely, Jadappa and Muniyappa. Rajendra being the grandson of said Venkatappa is claiming right in the suit properties of joint family properties. Date of death of Venkatappa, common propositus is not mentioned in the plaint.

¶143

However, according to the plaintiff, he was born in the year in 1984 and the partition between Jadappa and Muniyappa has taken place sometime in the year 1970. In other words, plaintiff was not even born on date of partition.

¶144

Therefore, plaintiff cannot claim the suit property as a coparcener being the grandson of Muniyappa. Same is appreciated by the learned Trial Judge and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court by supplying

¶145

18 -

¶146

NC: 2025:KHC:38495 RSA No. 365 of 2024

¶147

HC-KAR

¶148

cogent and convincing reasons and rightly rejected the plaint of the plaintiff.

¶149

Thus, from the above discussion, this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law for further

¶150

consideration.

¶151