Karnataka High Court
Vimala W/O Narasimha Bhat vs Narasimha Venkatraman Bhat on 11 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB
RFA No. 100276 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100276 OF 2023 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. VIMALA W/O. NARASIMHA BHATTA
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. TAREHALLI, PO: URATOTA,
TAL: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT.
2. RAMAN NARASIMHA BHATTA
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGICULTURIST,
R/O. TAREHALLI, PO: URATOTA,
TAL: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT.
3. SHUBHA W/O. VINAYAK BHATTA
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BAROORU, PO: BAROORU,
TAL: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT.
4. MAITRI W/O. MAHESH HEGDE
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. HALLIGADDE, PO: BAKKAL,
TAL: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT.
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK ...APPELLANTS
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI (BY SRI. A.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH AND:
Date: 2025.03.14
10:27:32 +0530
1. NARASIMHA VENKATRAMAN BHATTA
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. TAREHALLI, PO: URATOTA,
TAL: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT-581401.
2. JAYALAKSHMI KOM RAMACHANDRA HEGDE
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. MULAKANALLI, PO: AMMINALLI,
TAL: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT-581401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ROHIT L.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB
RFA No. 100276 of 2023
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO,
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON IA NO. 2 BY SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE COURT, SIRSI DATED 01.04.2023 IN OS NO. 82/2021,
BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND DISMISSING I.A. NO.2 AND TO
RESTORE THE SUIT IN O.S. NO. 82/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE COURT, SIRSI, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is filed by the plaintiffs who are
aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court on an
application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Section
151 of CPC. Applying the said provisions, the trial court
has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, which is filed
seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. The
plaintiffs have also challenged the compromise decree
recorded in O.S.No.26/2012.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.
3. The facts leading to the case are that;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB
Before we examine the issue on hand, we deem it
appropriate to cull out the family tree, which is as under:
Venkatraman Bhat (Died on 19-2-1985)
Parvati (Wife) (Died on 11-1-2019)
Narasimha(Son) (Def.No.1) Satyanarayan (Son) Jayalaxmi
Vimala(Wife)(Plaintiff No.1) (Died unmarried & Issueless) (Defendant No.2)
Raman(Son) (Plaintiff No.2)
Shubha(Daughter) (Plaintiff No.3)
Maitri (Daughter) (Plaintiff No.4)
4. One Venkatraman Bhatta was the propositus.
The said Venkatraman Bhatta has a son by name,
Narasimha and a daughter by name Jayalakshmi. The
present plaintiffs are the wife and children of the said
Narasimha, who is arraigned as defendant No.1 in the suit.
The present plaintiffs filed a suit seeking the relief of
partition and separate possession. The plaintiffs have also
challenged the compromise decree recorded between their
father Narasimha and defendant No.2 Jayalakshmi, who
are siblings.
5. Defendant No.2 on receipt of summons filed
written statement and also filed an application under Order
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB
VII Rule 11(d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint,
primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the plaintiffs being the
children of defendant No.1 cannot maintain an
independent suit in the light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TRILOKI NATH SINGH VS
ANIRUDH SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS reported in
(2020) AIR (SC) 2111. Defendant No.2 also contended
that the suit is barred by limitation and therefore, sought
rejection of the plaint. The trial court applying the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in TRILOKI
NATH SINGH (SUPRA) and other judgments, was of the
view that the plaintiffs who are wife and children of
defendant No.1 cannot maintain a suit and therefore, their
remedy is under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. The trial
court has also taken cognizance of the fact that the
compromise decree passed in O.S.No.26/2012 was before
the Lok Adalath and therefore, was of the view that the
compromise recorded before the Lok Adalath cannot be
challenged by way of separate suit and the aggrieved
parties have to avail their remedy in the manner known to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB
law. The trial court while rejecting the plaint was of the
view that the plaintiffs failed to challenge the compromise
decree well within the time and therefore, the plaint is
liable to be rejected. This order is under challenge.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and
learned counsel for defendant No.2.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the
reasons assigned by the learned Judge while rejecting the
plaint. We have also adverted to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TRILOKI NATH SINGH
(SUPRA).
8. Upon a meticulous examination of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, we find that the
principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of TRILOKI NATH SINGH (SUPRA) do not apply to the
case at hand. A close scrutiny of the judgment cited
reveals that the factual matrix in that case is distinct and
materially different. In the cited case, the dispute revolved
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB
around a person who had acquired title through a
judgment debtor and subsequently sought to challenge a
compromise decree that had already been entered into
between the parties. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while
considering the said circumstances, held that a person
who derives title from a judgment debtor and who was
subject to a compromise decree cannot maintain a
separate suit challenging the same, as he lacks an
independent right in the property.
9. However, the present case stands on an entirely
different footing. The plaintiffs, who are the wife and
children of defendant No.1, have instituted the suit
seeking partition and a declaration that the compromise
decree recorded in O.S.No.26/2012 is not binding on their
legitimate rights. The fundamental distinction in the
present case is that the plaintiffs, being members of a
joint Hindu family, claim their independent and pre-
existing rights in the suit schedule properties, which are
alleged to be joint family ancestral properties. The well-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB
established legal position is that in a suit for partition, the
rights of the parties are not created for the first time
under a decree; rather, the court merely declares and
effectuates the existing legal rights of the coparceners.
10. Additionally, under the Bombay School of Hindu
Law, to which the parties are subject, coparceners acquire
their rights in the ancestral property by birth. Plaintiff
Nos.2 to 4, being the son and daughter of defendant No.1,
have an inherent and independent right in the suit
schedule properties as coparceners. Furthermore, the fact
that defendant No.1, who is the husband of plaintiff No.1
and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, entered into a
compromise and accepted a negligible share in the
properties is a crucial aspect requiring adjudication. If the
compromise decree prejudicially affects the rights of the
plaintiffs, they are legally entitled to seek a declaration to
establish that the said decree is not binding upon them.
The plaintiffs must also be afforded an opportunity to
demonstrate the manner in which their independent and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB
pre-existing rights in the suit schedule properties have
been disregarded or unlawfully curtailed by the
compromise decree.
11. A thorough examination of the pleadings and
legal principles makes it evident that the trial court
committed a serious error in invoking Order VII Rule 11(d)
of CPC to non-suit the plaintiffs at a preliminary stage. The
rejection of the plaint by the trial court is not only
erroneous but also perverse and arbitrary. The trial court
misapplied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in TRILOKI NATH SINGH (SUPRA) and misconstrued
the pleadings and reliefs sought by the plaintiffs. In a
partition suit, even when a declaration is sought, the
principal relief remains the relief of partition, and such
matters necessitate a full-fledged trial where the rights
and contentions of all parties can be properly examined
and adjudicated. Therefore, the trial court's hasty rejection
of the plaint is unsustainable in law, as it effectively
negates the substantive rights of the plaintiffs without
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB
affording them an opportunity for due adjudication. In
light of these considerations, the impugned order deserves
to be set aside, and the matter must proceed to trial to
ensure that the plaintiffs' claims are fairly and justly
determined in accordance with law.
12. For the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 01.04.2023
passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.82/2021 by
the Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi is hereby set
aside.
iii) Since the parties are represented by their
respective counsel, without expecting any
further summons, they are directed to
appear before the trial court on 03.04.2025.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending I.A's, if
any, do not survive for consideration and the same are
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
MBS
Ct:vh
