This Civil Revision Petition challenged the dismissal of an application seeking rejection of a partition plaint. The High Court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the application as limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and joint possession issues must be tried earlier.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; All I.As. closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 890 OF 2025 (IO)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025
HC-KAR
PINCODE – 572 134
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT VADERAPURA VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE -572 120
NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025
HC-KAR
MARUTHINAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU, PINCODE -560 079
NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT NO.8/1, 11TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU- 560 003
…RESPONDENTS
THIS CRP FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. XXIII IN OS NO. 38/219 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, DISMISSING THE IA NO. XXIII FILED U/O VII RULE 11(a) TO (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.23 in O.S.No.38/2019 dated 26.09.2025, whereby the trial Court has rejected I.A.No.23 filed for rejection of plaint.
HC-KAR
plaintiffs who have no physical possession of the suit schedule property are not supposed to file the suit for the relief one sought and for the lack of improper framing of the suit, suit is bad and liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the suit is under valued and because sufficient court fee is not paid, the plaint is likely to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is stated that the plaintiffs who have approached the court seeking partition of their portion are not supposed to assess the market value of the suit schedule property and pay the Court Fee under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. But the plaintiffs are supposed to assess the suit and pay the Court Fee under Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. For the latches is not paying proper and correct Court Fee, the suit of the plaintiffs is bad and deserves to be dismissed and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c). There is an oral partition that was acted upon and on the basis of the said partition the khatha has been carried out in the name of the respective parties, mutation were also effected on the basis of the family division. Hence the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. It is also stated that some of the properties are self acquired properties and they
HC-KAR
cannot be part of the suit schedule and also has narrated several transactions and how the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of partition. It is also stated that there was a partition in the family, much prior to the commencement of the amended Act of Hindu Succession Act. Even on the said ground also, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected as barred by limitation.
HC-KAR
03.02.2019 and demanded their share in the suit scheduled property by metes and bound and since the defendants refused for the same, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the present suit. The Court observed that a wholesome reading of plaint averment would clearly bring forth the facts that the cause of action for the present suit arose when the demand of the plaintiffs for their legitimate share over the suit schedule properties which they claim to be ancestral properties of themselves and defendants over which they have a legitimate share was turned down by the defendants on 03.02.2019. A reading of the plaint averments would bring out the necessary cause of action for the plaintiffs to institute present suit and as such the contention of defendant No.2 that the plaint does not disclose the necessary cause of action to file the present suit is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025
HC-KAR
valuation of the suit within the ambit of Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and as such the contention of the defendants that Court Fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient and also that the suit of the plaintiffs is not properly valid does not stand to reason. With regard to the aspect of limitation, the Court observed that the question of limitation involves mixed question of law and facts and the same cannot be adjudicated merely on the basis of the plaint averment and it cannot be considered, accordingly rejected the I.A.
NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025
HC-KAR
had taken place, could have been decided by the Court looking
at the plaint averment. The Court has failed to exercise the discretion and the order passed is without considering facts and law and the same is liable to be set aside.
NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:28376 CRP No. 890 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER
SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of plaint application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC should be set aside at the revision stage.
Whether the plaintiffs were in joint possession to justify valuation under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees Act.
Whether the question of limitation can be adjudicated solely on the basis of plaint averments.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. GANGAMMA AND OTHERS
SRI. LAKSHMAIAH AND OTHERS
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
