Karnataka High Court
Sri. Harshakumar. N vs Sri. M. Chandrashekar on 29 November, 2023
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43246
RFA No. 1727 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1727 OF 2021 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HARSHAKUMAR. N
S/O. LATE B. S. NIRANJANAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
NO. 1124, RAILWAY STATION PARALLEL ROAD,
2ND A MAIN, KENGERI UPANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 060,
NOW AT: G-5, 407,
PROVIDENT WELWORTH CITY APARTMENT,
SH-9, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD,
MARASANDRA AMANIKERE,
NEAR TOLL, YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE-561 203.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.R.B. SADASIVAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. SRI. M. CHANDRASHEKAR
signed by
VANDANA S S/O. LATE S. MAHADEVAIAH,
Location: AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
HIGH RESIDING AT NO. 1691,
COURT OF MAHADEVAPPA BUILDING,
KARNATAKA B.M. ROAD, IJOOR, WARD NO. 28/1,
RAMANAGARA-562 159.
2. SMT. M. SHALINI
D/O. LATE S. MAHADEVAIAH,
W/O. JAYAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1691,
MAHADEVAPPA BUILDING,
B.M. ROAD, IJOOR, WARD NO. 28/1,
RAMANAGARA-562 159.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43246
RFA No. 1727 of 2021
NOW AT: GF-01, NO.128, 4TH CROSS,
DEGINAL NEST, VIDYAGIRI LAYOUT,
NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE-560 072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R P.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1
SRI. VISHWANATH K.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.06.2018 PASSED ON I.A
IN OS.No.447/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA, ALLOWING THE I.A. FILED
UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION
OF PLAINT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated
19.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.447/2013 by the Principal Senior
Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara, whereby the plaint filed by the
appellant - plaintiff was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC,
consequent upon which the suit of the appellant - plaintiff came to
be dismissed by the plaintiff.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
Perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
appellant - plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the
respondents - defendants for partition and separate possession of
NC: 2023:KHC:43246
their alleged share in the suit schedule properties and for other
reliefs.
3. In the said suit, in addition to filing of their written
statement, defendants filed an application seeking rejection of the
plaint in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
2016(2) SCC 36 Prakash and other v/s Phulavati and others.
4. Accepting the said contention of the respondents -
defendants and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Phulavati's case supra, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the
impugned order rejecting the plaint consequently dismissing the
suit by passing the impugned judgment and decree which is
assailed in the present appeal.
5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court will indicate that the sole ground on which the plaint was
rejected was that the suit was barred in the light of the judgment of
the Apex Court in Phulavati's case supra.
6. However, in view of the undisputed fact, the said
judgment in Phulavati's case supra has been subsequently over-
ruled by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in AIR 2020 SCC
3717 Vineeta Sharma v/s Rakesh Sharma and others.
NC: 2023:KHC:43246
7. I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the matter
is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in
accordance with law, bearing in mind the judgment of the Apex
Court rendered in Vineeta Sharma's case, supra.
8. In the result, I pass the following orders:
i) The appeal is hereby allowed
ii) Impugned order is set aside
iii) Matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for
reconsideration afresh bearing in mind the judgment of the
Apex Court rendered in Vineeta Sharma's case, supra.
iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are
kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
v) Parties undertake to appear before the Trial Court
on 20.12.2023 without awaiting any further notice.
vi) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on
all issues within a period of nine months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to file
additional pleadings and adduce oral and documentary
evidence in support of their respective claims.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DHA
