Dismissed

T Rajashekaraiah @ Rajashekar v. Smt Vasanthamma

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2026CRP/581/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application for rejection of plaint. The Court declined to interfere, noting that partial rejection of the plaint is impermissible, while observing that the trial Court should consider a preliminary issue application if filed by the petitioners regarding limitation.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to consider preliminary issue application if filed.

T Rajashekaraiah @ Rajashekar Vs Smt Vasanthamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:50245 CRP No. 581 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010443812026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶9

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 581 OF 2026 (IO)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

T RAJASHEKARAIAH @ RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

¶12

M.S. GOWRAMMA W/O RAJASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶13

BOTH RESIDING AT MADANAHALLI VILLAGE, MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMUKURU- 572 221

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. MURALI N., ADVOCATE)

¶16

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT VASANTHAMMA D/O OF ML HANUMANTHAIAH W/O VEERABHADRAIAH AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT BYALADAKERE VILLAGE, BELLURU HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA -571 811

¶19

SMT. LEELAVATHI D/O OF ML HANUMANTHAIAH W/O RAMALINGENGOWDA AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE, DABBEGHATTA HOBLI,

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:50245 CRP No. 581 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CNR: KAHC010443812026

¶23

TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR -572 221

¶24

SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O OF ML. HANUMANTHAIAH W/O RAMACHANDRA GN AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT GONITUKUR VILLAGE, DABBEGHATTA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR -572 221

¶25

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O LATE SHANKRAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶26

SRI RAJEEVA S/O LATE SHANKRAPPA AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶27

RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT MUTTUGADAHALLI VILLAGE, MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR -572 221

¶28

SMT. CHAITRA MS D/O LATE SHANKRAPPA AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS ARE R/AT MUTTUGADAHALLI VILLAGE, MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR -572 221

¶29

SMT. PRAMEELA W/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶30

SMT. RASHMI D/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:50245 CRP No. 581 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CNR: KAHC010443812026

¶34

SMT. RAJINI D/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶35

SMT. RAKSHITA D/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶36

RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 10 ARE ARE R/AT MUTTUGADAHALLI VILLAGE, MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR -572 221

¶37

SMT. RAMYA D/O LATE NANJEGOWDA W/O CHANDRU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT KENCHAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR -572 155

¶38

SRI BANU PRAKASH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED 55 YEARS,

¶39

SRI LAKKANGOWDA (SINCE DEAD BY LRs)

¶40

SMT. SHARADAMA, W/O LATE LAKKANGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶41

DEEPAK M.L., S/O LATE LAKKAN GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT MUTTUGADAHALLI VILLAGE, MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TUMKURU- 572 221

¶42

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:50245 CRP No. 581 of 2026

¶45

CNR: KAHC010443812026

¶46

SRI MANJUNTHA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT MUTTUGADAHALLI VILLAGE, MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR -572 221

¶47

SRI YOGESH S/O LATE MANJANNA AGED 33 YEARS, R/AT KOTUNAKOTTIGE VILLAGE, KODIGEHALLI POST, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR -572 213

¶48

…RESPONDENTS

¶49

THIS CRP FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2026, PASSED ON IA NO.V IN OS NO. 141/2025 DISMISSING THE IA NO. V FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶50

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

¶51

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶52

ORAL ORDER

¶53

Aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2026 passed in I.A.No.V in O.S.No.141/2025 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Turuvekere, the petitioners/defendant Nos.10 and 11 are before this Court.

¶54

The respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein, who are the plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.141/2025 seeking partition and separate possession, stating that certain documents are not binding on

¶55

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:50245 CRP No. 581 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

CNR: KAHC010443812026

¶58

the plaintiffs. The petitioners herein, defendant Nos.10 and 11, who are the subsequent purchasers, filed I.A.No.V under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) seeking rejection of the plaint. It is the case of the petitioners that there were earlier suits. In the earlier suit, there was a mention of a palupatti, and the said palupatti is not questioned. They have also not questioned the sale deed executed in favor of the petitioners way back in the year 2013. The suit is filed in the year 2025 and is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs have also mentioned in the plaint that the cause of action arose before filing of the suit. It is stated that all the documents are from the year 2013 and subsequent dates, and even the palupatti is not questioned by them.

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.10 and 11 submits that the trial Court failed to consider all these issues and dismissed the application. It is submitted that the trial Court may be directed to frame a preliminary issue.

¶60

Having heard the learned counsel on either side,

¶61

perused the entire material on record. According to the petitioners, they have purchased the property by way of a sale deed dated 18.03.2013. The suit also involves other documents

¶62

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:50245 CRP No. 581 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

CNR: KAHC010443812026

¶65

and other properties. Even if the petitioners are able to convince the Court that, as far as they are concerned, there is no cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation, the partial rejection of the plaint is not permissible. In those circumstances, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter, as the partial rejection of the plaint is not permissible, and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. If the petitioners file an application to frame a preliminary issue, the trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed .

¶68

ii. If the petitioners file an application to frame a preliminary issue, the trial Court shall consider it in accordance with law.

¶69

iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶70

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:50245 CRP No. 581 of 2026

¶73

CNR: KAHC010443812026

¶74

iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶75

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶76

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

T Rajashekaraiah @ Rajashekar v. Smt Vasanthamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Rajashekaraiah @ Rajashekar v. Smt Vasanthamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases