Smt. Savithramma vs Sri. Krishnappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 3704 Kant

                            1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

            R.S.A. NO.1033 OF 2021 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
D/O. LATE KASHI PILLAPPA,
W/O. NARAYANAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.,

1.   SRI. MANJUNATH Y.N,
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
     S/O. NARAYANAPPA,

2.   SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
     D/O. NARAYANAPPA,
     BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
     SANTHE CIRCLE,
     OPP. AJJEGOWDA BUILDING,
     BENGALURU NORTH.

3.   SMT. MUNIYAMMA
     D/O. LATE KASHI PILLAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
     R/AT KADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     JALA HOBLI,
     BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560063.
                                         ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ N. NAIDU, ADVOCATE)
                             2




AND:

1.     SRI. KRISHNAPPA
       S/O. LATE KASHI PILLAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

2.     SRI. NARAYANAPPA
       S/O. LATE KASHI PILLAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

3.     SRI. ANJINAPPA
       S/O. LATE KASHI PILLAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

       RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE
       RESIDING AT KADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
       JALA HOBLI,
       BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560063.

4.     SRI. B.K. BHASKAR
       S/O. B.M. KALLAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
       R/AT VIDYANAGAR CROSS,
       DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562157.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VENKATESHA C., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR
RESPONDENT NO.4)

     THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 14.12.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.15075/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE,   DEVANAHALLI,    BENGALURU     RURAL   DISTRICT,
REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 01.04.2017 PASSED ON IA.NO.8 IN OS.NO.609/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
DEVANAHALLI. ALLOWING THE IA.NO.8 FILED UNDER ORDER 7
RULE 11 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

     THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                3




                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.

No.609/2011 challenging an Order dated 01.04.2017

passed by Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Devanahalli

(henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') rejecting the plaint

under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC' for short), which was

upheld by the V Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural

District at Devanahalli (henceforth referred to as 'First

Appellate Court') in R.A.No.1075/2019 on 14.12.2020.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred as

they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs claim to be the daughters of

defendant No.1, while the defendants No.2 and 3 are the

brothers of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim that they

were not allotted any share but they came to know that

the suit property was sold in favour of defendant No.4 on

29.07.1981 without their notice and knowledge and

consent. They claimed that the sale was not for legitimate

legal necessity and that in view of the Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005, the plaintiffs were entitled to an

undivided share in the suit property.

4. The suit was contested by defendant No.4, who

is a purchaser of the suit property, he having purchased it

from the defendant No.1 in terms of a sale deed dated

29.07.1981. He also filed an application under Order VII

Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint since plaintiffs did

not have any cause of action to file the suit. This

application was contested by plaintiffs and the Trial Court

after considering the non-entitlement of the plaintiffs to file

a suit for partition, allowed the application and rejected the

plaint in terms of the order dated 01.04.2017. An appeal

preferred by the plaintiffs before the First Appellate Court

was also rejected on 14.12.2020.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants /

plaintiffs submitted that the Trial Court had allowed the

application without providing adequate opportunity to the

plaintiffs to represent their case. However, the learned

counsel did not dispute the fact that the suit property was

sold to defendant No.4 in terms of a sale deed dated

29.07.1981. It is clear that Section 6 of the Hindu

Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 saved all those

alienations that were brought about before 20.12.2004,

and therefore, the plaintiffs did not have any subsisting

right insofar as the suit property is concerned. Hence,

there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to file a suit

for partition. The cause of action mentioned in the plaint

was an illusion created by clever drafting and the Courts

were justified in piercing the cloak of illusion.

6. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court as

well as the First Appellate Court had rightly allowed the

application and rejected the plaint. There is no substantial

question of law which arises for consideration in this

appeal and hence, this appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE hnm