Karnataka High Court
Fakkiramma W/O Shivayogi Danannavar vs Tippavva W/O Fakkirappa Talawar on 26 September, 2025
-1-
CRP No. 100084/2025
RESERVED ON : 15.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100084 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
FAKKIRAMMA W/O. SHIVAYOGI DANANNAVAR
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCCU. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SANSHI, TQ. KUNDAGOL,
DIST. DHARWAD 581117.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. TIPPAVVA W/O. FAKKIRAPPA TALAWAR
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. GUNDUR, TQ. SAVANUR,
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN DIST. HAVERI-581118.
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH 2. RENUKA W/O. APPAYYA NIRVANI
Date: 2025.09.26
14:38:11 +0530
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCCU. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. HUDALI, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI-591346.
3. GEETA W/O. SOMANNA ITI,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BANKAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAV,
DIST. HAVERI-581202.
4. SHILPA W/O. MANJUNATH RAYACHUR,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581118.
-2-
CRP No. 100084/2025
5. REKHA W/O. LAXMAN TALAWAR,
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. GUNDUR, TQ. SAVANUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581118.
6. MALA W/O. MANJUNATH WALMIKI,
AGE. 31 YEARS, OCCU. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. MALLAGIPALA, TQ. MUNDAGOD,
DIST. KARWAR-581346.
7. KAVYA W/O. UMESH WALMIKI,
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. HIREMALLURU, TQ. SHIGGAV,
DIST. HAVERI-581205.
8. CHANNAMMA W/O. GANGAPPA TALWAR,
AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KALMADU, TQ. SAVANUR,
DIST. HAVERI 581118.
9. HANAMANTAPPA S/O. PUTTAPPA TALWAR
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUNDUR, TQ. SAVANUR,
DIST.-HAVERI 581118.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CPC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
21.06.2025 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, SAVANUR IN O.S.NO.27/2024
DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER
ORDER 7 RULE 11 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC SEEKING TO REJECT
THE PLAINT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE INTERIM
APPLICATION NO.4 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 15.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRP No. 100084/2025
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
The revision petitioner/defendant No.2 has filed this
revision petition challenging the order dated 21.06.2025 passed
by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Savanur
(for short, 'the trial Court') on I.A.No.IV filed by her under
Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC in
OS.No.27/2024.
2. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank before
the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision petition are
that plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No.27/2024 for partition
and separate possession of the suit properties and also to
declare that the compromise decree dated 22.04.2016 drawn in
O.S.No.136/2015 is not binding on plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant
has appeared before the trial Court and filed her written
statement to the suit and also filed I.A.No.IV under Order-VII
Rule-11 read with Section 151 of CPC and sought for rejection
of the plaint on the ground of lack of cause of action, valuation,
jurisdiction and suppression of suit filed by the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.391/2023. The said application was supported with the
affidavit of defendant No.2-Smt.Fakkiramma W/o.Shivayogeppa
-4-
CRP No. 100084/2025
Danannavar, in which, she has stated that plaintiffs have filed
suit for partition and separate possession of their legitimate
share in respect of suit properties and also for declaration to
the effect that the decree passed in O.S.No.136/2015 is not
binding on them. The plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.391/2023 with
the same prayer and with same suit properties and plaintiffs
after knowing that said suit is not maintainable, filed memo to
dismiss the said suit. Hence, said suit came to be dismissed on
02.02.2024. The plaintiffs have suppressed the said fact in the
present suit. It is submitted that in the year 2015, a suit in
O.S.No.136/2015 was filed, which was between same parties,
in which parties have entered into compromise. As per the
compromise decree, suit property i.e., R.S.No.23/2 measuring 1
acre has fallen to the share of defendant No.2. This fact has not
been shown in the plaint and suppression of material facts is
sufficient to reject the plaint. Further she stated that as per the
said compromise decree, defendant No.2 has become the
absolute owner of the suit property bearing R.S.No.23/2 and
her name is appearing in the record of rights and has got
converted said land into non-agricultural use and now the said
property is numbered as VPC No.314, 'E' property
No.151700600600720044 in the Teggihalli Gram Panchayat and
-5-
CRP No. 100084/2025
name of defendant No.2 is shown as the owner and she is in
possession of the same. It is stated that as on the date of suit,
Sy.No.23/2 does not exist, which land has been converted into
non-agricultural use. Hence, the actual market value of this
property is more than Rs.60,00,000/-. On all these grounds
sought for rejection of this plaint.
4. The plaintiffs have filed written objections to the
application contending that the plaintiffs have filed suit in
O.S.No.391/2023 and they have withdrawn the same with
liberty to file a fresh suit and in O.S.No.136/2015 the present
plaintiffs are not parties to the proceedings. Hence, the Decree
passed by the concerned Court on the basis of the compromise
petition is not binding to these plaintiffs. Further they have
denied the market value of the property is Rs.60,00,000/- and
further denied all other averments as false and sought for
dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard the arguments of both sides and
examined the materials placed on record.
6. The trial Court has clearly observed in paragraph No.15
of the impugned order that the withdrawal of the suit with
liberty to file a fresh suit does not bar the subsequent suit. The
memo produced by the plaintiffs shows that no adjudication on
-6-
CRP No. 100084/2025
merits. Further, the trial Court has observed that a decree or
compromise entered into between other parties cannot bind on
non-parties, particularly in a partition suit, where the claim
pertains to coparcenary or joint family property. This is a
matter to be adjudicated during the trial. The plaintiffs have
valued the suit based on the properties being agricultural in
nature and claim possession. The defendant No.2 disputes this
and asserts that it is non-agricultural land. This involves
disputed questions of fact regarding nature of land, its market
value and possession, which cannot be decided at this stage
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. On all these grounds trial
Court has rejected the application.
7. On careful examination of the order passed by the trial
Court, I do not find any error/illegality in the impugned order
dated 21.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.IV in O.S.no.27/2024 by
the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Savanur.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
Revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
CKK / CT-CMU
