Karnataka High Court
Sri. Honnappa vs Sri. A Ramachandrappa on 20 August, 2018
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.427/2017
Between
1. Sri. Honnappa
S/o Late Muniyappa
Aged about 85 years
2. Smt.Kempamma
W/o Honnappa
Aged about 60 years
3. Sri.Ramegowda B.H
S/o Honnappa
Aged about 35 years
All are residing at
Beerasandra Village
Alurduddanahalli Post
Kundana Hobli
Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District-562110. ... Petitioners
(By Sri. Chandrashekar Swamy K.B, Advocate)
And
1. Sri. A.Ramachandrappa
S/o late Anjinappa
Aged about 75 years
2. Sri.A.Munegowda
S/o Late Anjinappa
Aged about 68 years
-2-
3. Smt.Sarojamma
W/o Subbanna
D/o Late Anjinappa
Aged about 64 years
Respondents No.1 to 3 are
R/at Beerasandra Village
Kundana Hobli
Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District-562110.
4. Smt.Chandramma
W/o Venkatappa
D/o Late Anjinappa
Aged about 62 years
R/at Alappanahalli Village
Kasaba Hobli
Hosakote Taluk
Bangalore Rural District-562114.
5. Smt. Anandamma
W/o Rajanna
D/o Late Anjinappa
Aged about 60 years
Now R/at Vishwanathapura
Village & Post
Kundana Hobli
Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District-562110.
6. Sri.Purushotham
S/o Ramaiah
Aged about 53 years
R/at Ramachandrapura
Jalahalli, Bangalore-560011.
7. Sri.Ganganjinappa
S/o Late Muniyappa,
Aged about 63 years
8. Sri.A.C.Rameesh
S/o Chikkamunishamappa
Aged about 46 years
-3-
Respondents No.7 and 8 are
R/at Anneshwara Village
Kasaba Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District-562110.
9. Sri.Veerabasavangowda
S/o Shivappa
Aged about 47 years
Now, R/at B.Ganigal Village
Devadurga Taluk
Raichur District-584111.
10. The Manager
Canara Bank
Devanahalli Branch
Bangalore Rural District-562110.
11. The Manager
Canara Bank
Vishwanathapura Branch
Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District-562110.
12. Sri.B.R.Mohan Kumar
S/o A.Ramachandrappa
Aged about 40 years
13. B.M.Shekar
S/o A.Munegowda
Aged about 29 years
Respondents No.12 and 13 are
R/at Beerasandra Village
Kundana Hobli
Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District-562110.
14. Smt. Anjinamma
W/o Byregowda
D/o Honnappa
Aged about 55 years
-4-
15. Sri.Shivaraj
S/o Anjinamma
Aged about 32 years
16. Sri.Prakash
S/o Anjinamma
Aged about 29 years
Respondents No.14 to 16 are
R/at No.792/1, Ward No.4
Kere Kodi Road,
Vijayapura Town
Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District-562135.
17. Smt.Anusuyamma
W/o Late Rajanna
D/o Honnappa
Aged about 53 years
18. Smt.Soumya
D/o Rajanna & Anusuyamma
Aged about 28 years
19. Sri.Santhosh Kumar
D/o Rajanna & Anusuyamma
Aged about 25 years
Respondents No.17 to 19 are
R/at Vijayapura Town
Ward No.4
Kere Kodi Road
Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District-562135.
20. Smt.Pramilamma
W/o A.Shivakumar
D/o Honnappa
Aged about 33 years
R/at I Basapura Village & Post
Channarayapattana Hobli
Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District-562110.
-5-
21. Sri.D.Guruswamy
S/o Late Doddachannanjappa
Aged about 51 years
Residing at No.181/9
Sri.Shivalankareshvara Nilays
1st Main Road, 2nd Cross
Chikkabommasandra
Bangalore-560065.
22. Smt.B.M.Suma
W/o H.Byresh S/o Hombegowda
Aged about 38 years
R/at No.17, 22nd Main Road,
14th Cross, Padmanabhanagar
Bangalore-560070.
Presently residing at
Beerasandra Village
Kundana Hobli
Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District-562110.
23. Smt. B.M.Bhagya
W/o B.Manjesh
Aged about 34 years
R/at No.276, Byrappa Nilaya
S.S.A.Road, Hebbal
Banglaore-560032.
24. Smt.M.Vimala
W/o M.D.Chandrashekar
Aged about 30 years
R/at Manduru Village
Bidarahalli Hobli
Bangalore East Taluk
Bangalore-560049.
25. Smt.B.M.Geetha
W/o Srinivas
Aged about 28 years
R/at Doddaramannanavara
Nagarajappa's House
Bagalur Village
-6-
Jala Hobli
Bangalore North Taluk
Bangalore-562157.
26. Smt.Rathnamma
W/o Rajanna
D/o Late Anjinappa
Aged about 58 years
R/at Balepura Village
Channarayapattana Hobli
Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District-562110. ... Respondents
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section
115 of CPC., against the order dated 16.10.2017 passed
in I.A.No.24 in O.S.No.581/2009 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli, rejecting the
I.A.No.24 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) (b) and (d)
read with Section 151 of CPC., for rejection of plaint and
et.,
This Civil Revision Petition coming on for
Admission this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court challenging the order dated 16.10.2017 on I.A.No.24 in O.S.No.581/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli.
2. The petitioners are defendant Nos.14, 15 and 16 and respondent No.26 is plaintiff and other -7- respondents are defendants in O.S.No.581/2009 filed to declare partition deed dated 10.03.2003 as illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff; to declare sale deeds dated 04.10.2004 and other sale deeds in respect of suit schedule property as illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff; to declare exchange deed dated 01.10.2005 as illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff; to declare partition deed dated 01.10.2005 as illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff; to declare sale deed dated 31.05.2006 as illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff; and to declare gift deed dated 11.06.2006 as illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff.
3. The defendant Nos.14, 15 and 16 filed application under Order 7 Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint, as there is no cause of action to file the suit. The plaintiff resisted the application by filing objection and contended that suit is maintainable and relief sought is for declaration and partition deeds are illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff. Further it is contended that suit requires -8- trial and it cannot be rejected at the threshold. The trial court, by its order dated 16.10.2017, rejected the application filed by defendant Nos.14, 15 and 16 under Order 7 Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the writ papers.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. Further, he submits that the suit filed by respondent No.26/plaintiff is barred by provisions of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Further, defendant No.9 submits that item No.40 is purchased by him.
6. While dealing with application under Order 7 Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC, the Court shall look into only the averment contained in the plaint. Having looked into the plaint averment it is seen that the suit is one for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share and also for declaration that -9- the sale deeds and partition deeds are not binding on the plaintiff and the same is illegal and void. On going through the copy of plaint, it is avered that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. Sri.Anjinappa, father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 had acquired some of the suit schedule properties by way of inheritance. It is further noticed that Anjinappa died on 09.11.1999 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as his legal heirs. The plaintiff acquired right title and interest over suit schedule properties jointly. It is the case of plaintiff that the earlier sale deeds and partition deeds executed by the defendants are not binding on her and sought to declare those partition deeds and sale deeds as illegal and void. The plaintiff has stated that the cause of action arose when the defendants refused to effect partition on 10.09.2009 and subsequently, the trial court on going through the plaint averments came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has cause of action to file suit against the defendants. Further the trial court has come to the conclusion that whether Sections 6 and
- 10 -
8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to the facts of the case, is a matter for trial. The defendants have raised objection regarding payment of deficit court fee by the plaintiff. The trial court has observed that there is an issue with regard to court fee and it would be tried as a preliminary issue. The trial court has passed a reasoned order and there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. The petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial court.
7. Accordingly, civil revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMJ/rv