Karnataka High Court
Sri. C Puttarangashetty vs Smt. Jyothi on 8 April, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14552
CRP No. 632 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 632 OF 2023 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C. PUTTARANGASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHAMASHETTY,
R/O UPPINAMOLE VILLAGE,
YELANDUR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ANANTHARAM G.R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JYOTHI,
D/O SRI. MADAPPA,
C/O BELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by R/AT SHIVAPURA VILLAGE,
KIRAN HANGALA HOBLI,
KUMAR R
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
Location:
HIGH CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT.GOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE SRIKANTAPPA,
D/O LATE DODDASUBBAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT ANKALLI VILLAGE,
HANGALA HOBLI,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14552
CRP No. 632 of 2023
3. SMT. RATHNAMMA,
W/O LATE PRABHUSWAMY,
D/O LATE DODDASUBBAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT SHIVAPURA VILLAGE,
HANGALA HOBLI,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
4. SRI. NAGAPPA,
S/O LATE DODDASUBBAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
5. SRI. NANJAPPA,
S/O LATE DODDASUBBAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
6. SRI. MADAPPA,
S/O LATE DODDASUBBAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
7. SMT. GIRIJA,
W/O LATE MAHESHA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
8. MS. ANJALI,
D/O LATE MAHESHA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 8 ARE
R/AT THERAKANAMBI HUNDI VILLAGE,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
9. SRI.K.R. MANI,
S/O RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NO. 6/9, ANVARPASHA MOHALLA,
GALIPURA ROAD,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN,
PIN : 571 313.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:14552
CRP No. 632 of 2023
10. M/S JUBILEE GRANITES
INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
SY NO.81, DAMMU VILLAGE,
BELLARY DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, MR L.T. NANWANI.
11. SRI. H.S. JOSHI @ HITENDRAKUMAR,
SHIVASHANKAR JOSHI,
S/O SHIVASHANKAR VILLABHJI JOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/A GURUKRUPA,
DAMJIPURA NR. RAVIRATNA PARK,
150 FT. RING ROAD, OPP. TO BHAKTIDHAM,
RAJKOT, STATE OF GUJRAT.
12. SRI. MANIKANTA,
S/O MADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT THERAKANAMBI HUNDI VILLAGE,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VEERABHADRASWAMY H.P., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 3.)
NOTICE TO R1 AND 4 TO 12 ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE
ORDER DATED 31.10.2023.
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.31 OF 2020
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C., GUNDLUPET; B) REVISE AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION, I.A.NO.XI/23
DATED 16.09.2023 IN O.S.NO.31 OF 2020 THAT HAD BEEN
FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a), (b)
AND (d) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROSEDURE, 1908 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GUNDLUPET
AND ETC,.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:14552
CRP No. 632 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt.Jyothi, grand daughter of Sri.Doddasubbappa
instituted a suit for partition in respect of three agricultural
properties. However, subsequently, Smt.Jyothi filed a
memo seeking to withdraw the suit and at that stage, her
aunts, who were originally arrayed as defendant Nos.6 and
7 made an application to transpose themselves as plaintiff
Nos.2 and 3 and said application was granted, and
consequently, the 6th and 7th defendant became the 2nd
and 3rd plaintiffs.
2. The plaint averments indicate that the properties
were joint family properties and the properties had been
sold in favour of 8th and 9th defendant and the 9th
defendant had inturn sold the property that it had
purchased in favour of 10th defendant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
very Encumbrance certificate produced by the original
NC: 2024:KHC:14552
plaintiff would indicate that the property had been sold on
07.12.2005 and the suit was filed in the year 2020 and it
is therefore clear that the suit was hopelessly barred by
time.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to place
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
(2004) 3 SCC page 137, (2006) 5 SCC 353 and
(2007) 15 SCC 174 to contend that a real cause of action
had not been set out and the cause of action pleaded was
illusory.
5. As already noticed above, the simple case of the
present plaintiffs was that they had a right by birth in the
joint family properties and that they were entitled to seek
partition of the said properties. If the plaintiffs are able to
establish this particular fact, they would definitely have a
valid cause of action and therefore, these rulings would be
of no assistance to the petitioner.
6. It is to be stated here that 6th and 7th defendants
are not parties to the sale deed executed in favour of the
NC: 2024:KHC:14552
9th defendant, who in turn sold the properties to the 10th
defendant. This Court in MUNITHAYAMMA'S CASE has
already held that if a person is not a party to an alienation
- Sale Deed it would not be necessary for him to challenge
the same, since it is quite probable that the alienation
made by another coparcener of his share is acceptable to
that person. It is, therefore, clear that the 2nd and 3rd
plaintiffs ( i.e., Smt.Gowramma and Smt.Rathnamma, who
were originally 6th and 7th defendants) need not challenge
the alienation made by their siblings in favour of the 8th
and 9th defendants. Since it is contended by the original
plaintiff and continued by the present plaintiffs that the
suit properties were joint family properties and they have
the right by birth, they will be entitled to seek partition.
7. In this case, it is also noticed that the alienation
was made after 20th of December, 2004 and therefore,
those alienation would not be saved even as per the
amended provision under Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act. It is thus clear that there exists a cause of
NC: 2024:KHC:14552
action for the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs to file a suit for
partition. The Trial Court in my view, has correctly come to
the conclusion that no case was made out for rejection of
the plaint.
8. Hence, Civil Revision Petition is therefore
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RMS
