Karnataka High Court
Sri Ashwathareddy vs Smt Venkatalakshmamma on 4 December, 2021
Bench: R. Nataraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.339/2019
BETWEEN
SRI ASHWATHAREDDY
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMI REDDY
@ VENKATESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O AREHALLI, GUDDADAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TQ
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
... PETITIONER
[BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE]
AND
1. SMT VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
D/O PATEL RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
2. SRI SRINIVASA REDDY
S/O PATEL RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
BOTH R1 AND R2 ARE RESIDING AT
AREHALLI, GUDDAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TQ
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
3. SMT. HONNAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATASWAMIREDDY @
2
VENKATASWAMAPPA
W/O SRI SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O LAKKUR
MALUR TALUK- 563130.
4. SMT. VENKATALAXAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATASWAMIREDDY @
VENKATASWAMAPPA,
W/O SRI.RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O SINGANAYAKANAHALLI,
YELAHANKA TALUK-560064.
5. SMT. ALUVELAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATASWAMIREDDY @
VENKATASWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O. TATANUR, CHIKKATIRUPATHI,
MALUR TALUK - 563 130.
6. SRI.RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE AKKAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
AREHALLI, GUDDADAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 561 203.
7. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE AKKAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O ATTIBELE, ANEKALLU TALUK-562106.
8. SMT. RAMAKKA D/O LATE AKKAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O MUDARALU, CHITALAGUNTAS,
MULAGABLU - 563131.
3
9. SRI SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE AKKAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O AREHALLI, GUDDAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 561 203.
10. SRI MANJU S/O LATE SRI.RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O HOGANADI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110.
11. SRI KACHAPPA S/O LATE SRI.RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O HOGANADI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110.
12. SMT. ASHWATAMMA W/O SRI.THIMMAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
D/O PATEL RAMAIAH
R/O NO.144, SORHUNASE VILLAGE
VARTUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST
TALUK - 560 063.
13. SMT. VASANTAMMA
W/O SRI NARAYANAREDDY
D/O PATEL RAMAISH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O NERIGE VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANAKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562125.
14. SRI.MUNISHAMAIAH
S/O LATE SRI.PATEL RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O AREHALLI, GUDDADAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 561 203.
4
15. SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O LATE SRI.VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/O.RANGENAHALLI,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 571 203.
16. SMT. VASANTAMMA
D/O SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
17. SRI LOKESH S/O SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
18. SRI SAMPATH KUMAR
S/O SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
19. SRI MANJUNATH
S/O.SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
20. SRI PRAKASH
SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.16 TO 20 ABOVE
ARE RESIDING AT
AREHALLI, GUDDADAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 561 203.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. NAGARAJA S, ADV FOR R1 & R2
V/O DTD.5.11.19
NOTICE TO R3-20 DISPENSED WITH]
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
5
DECREE DATED: 22.10.2018 OASSED IB UA XV IN OS
NO.220/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., DODDABALLAPURA DISMISSING THE IA
NO.XV UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(A) (B) AND (D) OF CPC.,
FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by defendant No.1 in
O.S.No.220/2015 pending trial before the Senior Civil
Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapura (henceforth referred to as
the 'Trial Court') challenging the correctness of the Order
dated 22.10.2018, by which, the Trial Court rejected an
application filed by the defendant No.1 under Order VII
Rule 11(a) (b) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(henceforth referred to as 'CPC') with cost of Rs.500/-.
2. The suit in O.S.No.220/2015 was filed for
partition and separate possession of the share of the
plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs
claim to be the legal heirs of the daughter of Papi Reddy
while defendant No.1 claims to be the grand son of Papi
Reddy. The plaintiffs claim that there was no partition
amongst the family members and that the suit properties
was possessed by them as joint family estate and
therefore, they sought for division of their shares in the
suit property.
3. The defendant No.1 whose name was entered
in the revenue records relating to the suit schedule
properties contested the suit and filed an application to
reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC on the
ground that the suit did not disclose any cause of action.
4. The Trial Court considered the averments of
the plaint as well as contentions urged in the written
statement and the application filed for rejecting plaint. The
Trial Court after considering the averments, held that the
predecessor of plaintiffs were entitled to succeed to the
undivided share in the properties of her father. The Trial
Court held that the contentions urged by the defendant
No.1 could not be considered at the preliminary stage of
the suit and therefore, rejected the application in terms of
the order, which is impugned in the present * petition.
5. The learned counsel for defendant No.1
vehemently submitted that the grandfather of plaintiffs
died in the year 1953 and therefore, the mother of
plaintiffs had no share in view of the extant Mysore Hindu
Law Women's Right Act, 1933, as no share was prescribed
for female members in ancestral properties. She
contended that unless the plaintiffs pleaded the date of
death of Papi Reddy, the plaint could not be construed as
properly filed as the date of death determined the cause of
action. Therefore, she contended that the plaint was liable
to be rejected.
6. A perusal of application filed by the defendant
No.1 under Order VII Rule 11(a) does not indicate that the
defendant No.1 had raised such a contention before the
Trial Court. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs claim to be the
grand children of Papi Reddy and that they possessed
undivided right, title and interest. The question whether
*Deleted vide Chamber Order
dated 23.12.2021
their grandfather died prior to or after the commencement
of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is a question of fact. It
is therefore, for them to establish the date of death of Papi
Reddy to claim an undivided share in the suit schedule
properties. The Trial Court was justified in rejecting the
application with cost. Since there is no merit in the revision
petition, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nms
