Karnataka High Court
Smt Sudha Nataraj vs Sri Mahesh B S on 7 March, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10972
CRP No. 475 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 475 OF 2022 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SUDHA NATARAJ
W/O LATE B S NATARAJ
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
BELAGOODU VILLAGE
SAKALESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. OMKAR BASAVA PRABHU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MAHESH B S
S/O LATE B SHANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
NO.737, 10TH MAIN
4TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR
2ND STAGE, MYSURU-570 017.
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR 2. SRI B S SHIVAPRAKASH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O LATE B SHANTHAPPA
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
LAKSHMI PURAM LAYOUT
SAKALESHPUR, HASSAN-573 134.
3. SMT REETHU
W/O RPAVEEN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O TYAGAMARGA
SIDDARTHA LAYOUT
MYSORE-570 011.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10972
CRP No. 475 of 2022
4. KAVYA
W/O B S SURAJ
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
SURKODU ESTATE
BIKKODU VILLAGE
BELUR TALUK, BIKKODU POST
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 215.
5. SMT B S GEETHA
W/O UMESH N MURTHY
D/O LATE B SHANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
NO.25/34, VISHWANTHA RAO ROAD
MADHUVANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 001.
6. SMT SHAILA PRAKASH
W/O B S SHIVAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
LAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT
SAKALESHPURA TOWN
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y K NARAYANA SHARMA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. H T JAGANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R4 TO R6;
NOTICE TO R3 & R5 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2022 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.XXII IN OS.NO.10/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SAKALESHPURA. DISMISSING THE
I.A.NO.XXII FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (a), (c) AND (d)
OF CPC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10972
CRP No. 475 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner - defendant No. 5 is in civil revision, challenging the order dated 23.08.2022, passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakleshpur in O.S No. 10/2017, whereby the Trial Court below has dismissed the application for rejection of plaint in a suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff for partition and consequential relief of separate possession of ¼ share of suit properties. Additionally, the plaintiff has sought a declaration that any alienation made by defendants No.1 and 2 of such joint family and coparcenary properties forming part of the suit schedule property, is not binding on the respondent- plaintiff.
2. A perusal of records indicates that the respondent- plaintiff and defendants No.1 - to 3 are the children of Late Shri B Shantappa and Smt Lalithamma; defendants No. 4 and 5 are the wives of defendants No.1 and 2, respectively. Furthermore, the suit schedule properties mentioned as Schedules 'a', 'b' and 'c' properties are acquisitions of the deceased B Shantappa, however, schedule 'd' properties were acquired subsequent to the demise of the latter, in the names of the members of the joint family, but out of the joint family nucleus.
-4-NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 2.1. Furthermore, it is the contention of respondent - plaintiff that defendants No.1 and 2 were in control and managed the suit schedule properties, in the absence of the plaintiff, who had been residing abroad and later in Mysuru; however, the defendants No.1 and 2 have made undisclosed acquisition of properties from the joint family nucleus, in their names and in favour of their wives. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that the defendants have not had any separate and independent source of income, apart from the joint family income.
2.2. The plaintiff further contends that the defendants had made certain borrowings, against the alleged undivided interest of the plaintiff in the suit properties, but had not effected till date, a partition dividing equal portions of the purportedly partible estate amongst the sharers thereto. Hence, the subject suit of the respondent-plaintiff.
2.3. The petitioner-defendant No.5, in response, filed an application for rejection of plaint inter alia, contending that the plaint averments reveal an admission of an already effected registered partition, which was executed way back in the year 1970 and was followed by mutation of revenue records in favour of plaintiff and defendants, as regards the properties fallen to respective shares under -5- NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 the said partition. Subsequently, the petitioner further contends, two other partition deeds were executed and registered on 05.05.2000 and 22.09.2015. Thereafter, the parties have been in exclusive and separate possession of properties ever since.
2.4. Therefore the subject suit, as such, is barred by the law of limitation by 41 years, and that the subject suit was deliberately undervalued, as the court fees payable were to have been calculated as prescribed under subsection (1) of Section 35 of the Karnataka Court Fees Act, 1958, and not as under sub-section (2) thereof.
3. It is further relevant to observe that the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 seeking to amend the plaint so as to include a challenge to the validity of partition deed dated 22.09.2015, gift deed dated 16.01.2015 - executed by the late mother of the plaintiff in favour of the unarrayed son of the defendant No. 1, and the gift deed dated 20.10.2009 - executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 2, in lieu of a will supposedly executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the the plaintiff, which was subsequently alleged to have been deceitfully cancelled.
-6-NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 3.1. Furthermore, the plaintiff has sought to include schedule properties 'd', 'e' and 'f', as is disclosed by a memo of documents dated, 12.09.2024 filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The said proceedings before the Trial Court had been stayed by a co-ordinate Bench, vide an interim order dated, 29.11.2022, in continuance till date.
Submissions
4. The learned counsel Shri. Omkar Basava Prabhu appearing for the petitioner-defendant No. 5 submitted that plaintiff has admitted in paragraph No. (14) of plaint that there was a registered partition deed between the members of the joint family. The learned counsel contended that a partition was at the earliest, first executed in 1970 and subsequently, there were two other partition deeds executed within the family, as on 05.03.2000 and 22.09.2015, and has produced copies of the same, at documents No. 8, 6 and 7 in the memorandum of the petition, respectively. The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed these facts, with an intention to circumvent the bar of limitation over the subject suit. Therefore, the plaint in the subject suit is an attempt at clever drafting by not mentioning the dates of earlier effected partitions within the family, and deserves to be rejected.
-7-NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 4.1 Furthermore, the learned counsel submitted that plaintiffs have inaccurately stated that the parties herein are in joint possession of the suit properties, despite mutation of revenue records in favour of the children of the late Shri B Shantappa, as per the deeds of the above mentioned earlier effected deeds of partition.
4.2. As regards, the proposed amendment seeking to add certain properties, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted as follows:
i. The respondent-plaintiff has ingeniously omitted from challenging the registered partition deed dated 18.11.1970 in the proposed amendment;
ii. The plaintiff has sought in the subject suit a partition of lands that were the subject matter of a registered partition deed, as evidenced by a conjoint reading of the properties described in the subject suit schedule 'a', and schedule 'B', 'C' and 'D' properties of partition deed of the year 1970, annexed as document No.8 in the memorandum of this petition;
iii. The plaintiff has sought to impugn the gift deed dated 20.10.2009 executed by the later mother of the plaintiff Smt Lalithamma in favour of the son of defendant No.1, but the latter remains unarrayed in the subject suit; iv. The plaintiff has sought to cancel the gift deed dated 16.01.2015 conveyed by him in favour of defendant No. 2 in relation to property bearing Sy. No. 145/1, measuring 20 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 guntas, and a parcel of land bearing Sy. No. 146/1, measuring 3 acres and 1 guntas, vide amendment application dated 05.04.2024, after expiry of more than 8 years under more than 9 years from the date of the impugned deed. The same cannot be permissible under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes that a suit for cancellation of an instrument must be filed within a period of three years from when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled become known to him. Therefore, the learned counsel asserted that any challenge to the said gift deed could not be maintainable in light of the pleading in the plaint that the cause of action arose upon the demise of the father and mother of the plaintiff on 26.08.2015 and memo dated 24.01.2017, whereby the defendant and his wife had asserted to the impartible nature of suit property herein.
4.3. In conclusion, the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.5 contended that the subject suit of the plaintiff cannot be maintainable, even in light of the newer prayers and additional properties sought to be included in the suit.
In support, reliance is placed upon following cases:
i. Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and Ors (Civil Appeal no.2717/2023) ii. G. Baramappa v. Kenchappa and Ors., in CRP No. 675/2003 : DD 12.03.2003 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 iii. Smt Dhanalakshmi and Ors. v. Sri Venkataswamy and Ors., CRP No. 265/2021 : DD 01.09.2022 iv. Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Education Charitable Society... v. M/s. Ponniamman Education Trust..., in Civil Appeal No. 4841 /2012 :
03.07.2012 v. US Sasidharan v. K Karunakaran, in Civil Appeal (Election) No. 4030/1987 : DD 23.08.1989 vi. Manohar Joshi v. Nithin Bhaurao Patil and Anr., in Civil Appeal No. 4973/1993 : DD 11.12.1995
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, Shri YK Narayan Sharma, rebutting the contention of the petitioner-defendant that the subject suit is barred by limitation, submitted that while considering an application for rejection of plaint, Courts are restricted to examination of plaint averments. However, the averments in the plaint in the instant case do not reveal any case for a dismissal of the suit at the threshold, as the the same does not exhibit any reference or admission or knowledge of fact of an earlier registered partition effected in the year 1970. Furthermore, it is settled law that unless the averments in the plaint do not indicate that the subject is ex facie barred by the law of limitation, a question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, to be adjudicated upon at the time of trial.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 5.1. The learned counsel further submitted that neither the defendants herein, nor the late mother Smt Lalithamma had any separate avocation, so as to have any independent source of income. Therefore, any and all properties standing in the names of defendants herein are in joint family properties mutated in the names of members of the undivided joint family, in pursuance of an interim domestic arrangement. The learned counsel further contended that the parties herein continue to remain in joint possession of the suit properties, as no partition has been effected dividing the properties by metes and bounds amongst the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2. However, the defendants herein have illegally refused the plaintiff from not only enjoying the usufructs of the joint family properties, but have also refused any access to the house properties contained in the scheduled properties.
5.2. It is specific contention of the plaintiff that in absence of proof of separate income, any properties acquired in the names of the defendants No. 4 and 5 (i.e., wives of defendants No. 1 and 2, respectively) are in the character of partible estates, on account of the said acquisition having been funded from the joint family nucleus. As such, the suit of the plaintiff over such
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 properties is maintainable. Moreover, any alienations made by the defendants herein of the properties standing in their name are not binding on the plaintiff.
5.3. As regards the proposed amendment to the plaint, the learned counsel submitted that the additional prayers sought impugning the instruments and inclusion of certain other schedule properties, as mentioned in paragraph no. 3 and paragraph no. 3.1. above, respectively, have been made in light of bona fide delay and lapse in arriving at the exact extent of the joint family property. Furthermore, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned partition deed dated 22.09.2015 sought to be impugned in the proposed amendment had been effected by taking undue advantage of the absent physical possession of the plaintiff and after obtaining GPA agreement dated 03.10.2012 from the plaintiff in favour of the defendants No. 1 and 2. The defendants herein have thereafter, have made several false and fraudulent representations and have effected the said partition deed.
5.4. As regards, the gift deed dated 20.10.2009, the learned counsel submitted that in light of the fact that Smt Lalithamma had not possessed any independent income, any alienations made by her in favour of the son of the defendant No.1 cannot be sustained, in light of the fact
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 that the properties standing in her name continued to be the joint family properties. Furthermore, in relation to the cancellation of the gift deed dated 16.01.2015, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 2, the learned counsel submitted that the same ought to be cancelled in light of the fact the said gift deed was executed in consideration of a will executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant No.2, and that the latter had subsequently cancelled the same.
5.5. In conclusion, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that suit was maintainable and that the proposed amendment to the plaint ought to be permitted to ensure complete and conclusive adjudication of the lis.
In support, reliance is placed on the following:
(i) Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy AIR 2023 SC 5516, Para 7-12.
(ii) Kamala v. K.T Eswar Sa AIR 2008 SC 3174, para 15, 16,21,24.
(iii) ELDECO Housing and Industries Ltd v. Ashok Vidyarthi AIR 2024 SC (civil) 700, para 23,25,26.
(iv) Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai AIR 2018 SC 2447, para 16,17.
(v) K.C Laxmanan v. K.C Chandrappa Gowda AIR Online 2022 SC 556, para 7-10.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022
(vi) Ganapati Sanataram Bhosale and Anr v. Ramachandra Subbarao Kulkarni and Ors AIR 1985 Kant 143, para 18,19.
(vii) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev builders Pvt Ltd AIR 2022 SC 4256.
Issues
9. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9.1. The issues that emerges for consideration are:
i. Whether a suit for partition may be maintainable in the absence of a specific pleading and description that only certain properties in the entire list of the schedule properties are partible estates?
In other words, whether a plaint can be rejected at the threshold under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, 1908 for having included in the plaint schedule property, both, partible estates and impartible estates - those properties which have acquired a separate character, on account of prior registered partitions.
ii. Whether the plaintiff may be entitled to incorporate an otherwise time barred
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 claim, through an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, 1908 to amend a plaint in a partition suit, upon the expiry of six years from the date of institution of the suit?
iii. Whether the plaintiffs may be permitted to amend their plaint to include properties, other than those which were the subject matter of the earlier effected registered deeds of partition?
Discussion/Analysis
10. All issues are dealt with together for want of convenience. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition having been recorded in the preceding paragraphs, any further elaboration of facts is not merited at this stage.
11. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the Trial Court below dismissing the application for rejection of plaint reveals that the Court opined that the disputed issue of whether the registered partition dated 18.11.1970 had indeed been effected is matter of trial, as the averments in the plaint do not lead to discernible conclusion of its existence or otherwise, and
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 that the parties therein had admitted to the properties originally belonging to the late Shri B Shantappa.
11.1. The Ld. Trial Judge has further opined that the question of whether the plaintiff suffered an ouster from joint family properties is again a matter of trial, in light of the undisputed fact that the source and origin of properties is traced back to the deceased B Shantappa. As regards the contention of improper payment of court fee, the Court observed that proper fees were subsequently paid, vide fresh valuation slip dated 06.08.2018.
12. A further perusal of the impugned order does not indicate that the above conclusions were arrived at upon considering any of the documents annexed to the memorandum of petition, more particularly, documents No. 6 (copy of registered partition deed 22.09.2015), 7 (copy of registered partition deed 05.05.2000) and 8 (copy of registered partition deed 18.11.1970). The petitioner- defendant No. 5 has produced all records of earlier partitions and the schedules appended thereto, containing the property fallen to the share of the plaintiff, defendants No. 1, 2 and 3.
12.1. Therefore, in light of the documents annexed to the instant petition, coupled with the review of the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 averments in the plaint and the proposed amendment thereto, the instant petition, in my considered opinion, must be allowed, in view of the proposed order.
13. A review of the record of the document No. 8annexed to the petition reveals that a partition was in fact effected amongst Late B. Shantappa, defendant No. 1, defendant No.2, plaintiff herein, and two unknown minors rep. by Late B Shantappa, on 18.11.1970 (CA No. 33/96-
97). A scrutiny of the said registered deed further reveals that properties as recorded hereunder, had fallen to the share of the plaintiff, as contained in Schedule D of the Deed dated 18.11.1970, which are found in the Schedule A properties described in the subject plaint:
Sr. Schedule D of registered partition deed Schedule A of the properties No. dated 18.11.1970, - properties fallen to the described in the subject plaint, in share of plaintiff - Mahesh BS O.S. No. 10/2017.
1. Land bearing Sy. No. 130, measuring about 1 Equivalent to item No. 23 acres and 20 guntas,
2. Land bearing Sy. No.150/2, measuring about 2 Equivalent to item No. 24 acres and 4 guntas
3. Land bearing Sy. No.152, measuring about 0 Equivalent to item No. 25 acres and 33 guntas
4. Land bearing Sy. No.157, measuring about 3 Equivalent to item No. 26 acres and 39 guntas
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022
5. Land bearing Sy. No.136, measuring about 2 Equivalent to item No. 27 acres and 18 guntas
6. Land bearing Sy. No.140, measuring about 4 Equivalent to item No. 28 acres and 21 guntas
7. Land bearing Sy. No. 141, measuring about 4 Equivalent to item No. 29 acres and 21 guntas
8. Land bearing Sy. No. 49, coffee estate, Equivalent to item No. 30 measuring about 5 acres and 28 guntas
9. Land bearing Sy. No. 50, coffee estate, Equivalent to item No. 31 measuring about 20 acres and 13 guntas
10. Land bearing Sy. No. 11, coffee estate, Equivalent to item No. 32 measuring about 3 acres and 0 guntas
11. Land bearing Sy. No. 52, coffee estate, Equivalent to item No. 33 measuring about 14 acres and 24 guntas
14. In view of the above, and in absence of any pleading in the plaint challenging or specifically disagreeing with the above portions of the properties fallen to the share of the plaintiff, this Court cannot but be prevailed upon to hold that the above properties have fallen to the exclusive and separate share of the plaintiff.
14.1. A further perusal of the said document No. 8 reveals that the said partition also effected a division of
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 properties in favour of the defendants No. 1 and 2, as follows:
Sr. Schedule B of registered Schedule A Schedule C of registered Schedule No. partition deed dated of the partition deed dated A of the 18.11.1970, - properties properties 18.11.1970, - properties properties fallen to the share of described fallen to the share of described defendant No. 1 in the defendant No. 2 in the subject subject plaint, in plaint, in O.S. No. O.S. No. 10/2017. - 10/2017.
'Equivalent 'Equivalent
to item to item
No....' No....'
1. Land bearing Sy. No. 163, 2 Land bearing Sy. No. 148, 7
coffee estate, measuring about coffee estate, measuring about
14 acres and 37 guntas 1 acre and 9 guntas
2. Land bearing Sy. No. 164, 3 Land bearing Sy. No. 158/2, 9
coffee estate, measuring about coffee estate, measuring about
19 guntas 3 acres and 10 guntas
3. Land bearing Sy. No. 165, 4 Land bearing Sy. No. 158/3, 10
coffee estate, measuring about coffee estate, measuring about
16 guntas 5 acres and 12 guntas
4. Land bearing Sy. No. 166, 5 Land bearing Sy. No. 159, 11
coffee estate, measuring about coffee estate, measuring about
25 guntas 1 acres and 20 guntas
5. Land bearing Sy. No. 167, 6 Land bearing Sy. No. 160, 12
coffee estate, measuring about coffee estate, measuring about
3 acres and 9 guntas 2 acres and 4 guntas
6. Land bearing Sy. No. 161, 13
coffee estate, measuring about
8 acres and 12 guntas
7. Land bearing Sy. No. 162, 14
coffee estate, measuring about
1 acres and 20 guntas
8. Land bearing Sy. No. 131, 15
krishi land/gaddhe/tari,
measuring about 1 acres and
17 guntas
9. Land bearing Sy. No. 153, 16
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972
CRP No. 475 of 2022
krishi land/gaddhe/tari,
measuring about 1 acres and
11 guntas
10. Land bearing Sy. No. 154, 17
krishi land/gaddhe/tari,
measuring about 2 acres and
05 guntas
11. Land bearing Sy. No. 141, 18
krishi land/gaddhe/tari,
measuring about 17 acres and
00 guntas
12. Land bearing Sy. No. 142, 19
krishi land/gaddhe/tari,
measuring about 00 acres and
10 guntas
14.2. It is thus clear that those properties as are partitioned amongst the plaintiff and the defendants No. 1 and 2 (including those that have fallen to the shares of their respective wives) in the earlier round of partition executed in 1970, between the said parties, as attempted to be extracted in the above preceding paragraphs, cannot fall under the purview of the subject suit of the partition, unless the said deed is set aside in accordance with law.
The issue of maintainability of a challenge to the partition effected through the said deeds mentioned in paragraph no. (12) above, shall be addressed later in the order.
14.3. Similarly, a perusal of the registered partition deed dated 22.09.2015, at document No.6 reveals that certain properties have been divided between the plaintiff
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 and defendants herein. For instance, the residential property described at item no. 11 of Schedule B of subject suit had been equally divided between the plaintiff, and defendant No. 1, as is corroborated by Schedule D of the registered partition deed of 2015.
14.4. Likewise, a residential property at item No. 1 of Schedule B of subject suit was granted to defendant No.1 and his wife - defendant No. 4, and another residential property described at item No. 12 of the subject suit had fallen to the share of defendant No. 2 and his wife, petitioner-defendant.
14.5. A review of registered partition deed dated 05.05.2000, annexed at document No. 7, reveals that schedule C property thereof was partitioned between the 'defendant No. 1 and his wife - defendant No. 4', 'defendant No. 2 and his wife - defendant No. 5', and 'plaintiff and his wife'. The same however does not find a mention in the plaint.
15. In view of the above established facts, it is apposite at this stage to advert the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 5.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 15.1. In the case of Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and Ors (Civil Appeal no.2717/2023), the plaintiffs who were successors-in- interest of a property having fallen to the share of one branch of the family in a registered partition dated 11.03.1953, had instituted in 2014, a suit against the successors-in-interest of property fallen to the share of another branch seeking:
- declaration that the suit property being as part of survey numbers and boundary other than those mentioned in the official records, and;
- consequential relief of permanent injunction against interference in possession of the suit property;
- and a further declaration that certain conveyances effected in relation to the suit property amongst the descendants in the other branch in relation to the suit property in the years 2008 and 2009, and the sale of the suit property in the year 2010 by the said defendant- descendants No. 1 to 8, in favour of appellant-defendants No. 9 and 10, as not binding on the plaintiffs.
15.1.2. The subject suit therein was premised upon the existence of alleged error in the deed of partition dated 11.03.1953, wherein the survey nos. of the suit property were allegedly wrongly mentioned as 706/A9, and the plaintiffs contended that the defendant-
descendants of the other branch of the family, and the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 appellant-defendants had therefore, no right to effect any transactions in respect of any property in survey no. 706/A9.
15.1.3. The Apex Court observed that where the plaintiffs, in an attempt to circumvent the bar of limitation, had deliberately not laid a challenge to the partition deed dated 11.03.1953 and the subsequent gift deeds dated 24.01.1998, executed by the signatory-coparcener in favour of his daughters, any relief sought in the nature of rectification of the said partition deed, by attempting to agitate a claim lapsed by 61 years from the date of partition deed, was a case of clever drafting presenting an illusory cause of action. The Court further observed that the appellant-defendants who had purchased the suit property from defendant-descendants No. 1-9, vide registered sale deed, were admittedly, in possession since the year 2010.
15.1.4. Consequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, 1908.
15.2. The decisions of this Court in G. Baramappa v. Kenchappa and Ors., in CRP No. 675/2003 : DD 12.03.2003, and Smt Dhanalakshmamma v. Sri Venkataswamy, CRP No. 265/2011 : DD 01.09.2022,
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 deal with the issue of proper court fees payable in a case for partition and separate possession, where the plaintiff had impugned the earlier partition as sham and not acted upon. This Court opined the same to be payable under Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The perusal of the impugned order indicates that the respondent-plaintiff herein has made the payment of proper court fees in accordance with law.
15.3. In the case of the Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Education Charitable Society... v. M/s. Ponniamman Education Trust..., in Civil Appeal No. 4841 /2012 : DD 03.07.2012, the Apex Court dealt with the the issue of rejection of plaint in a suit for specific performance of conveyance through general power of attorney and opined therein that a cause of action included all material facts on which the decretal of the suit could be sustained, and further reaffirmed its earlier decision in the case of ABC Laminart Pvt Ltd. & Anr v. AP Agencies, Salem (1988) 2 SCC 163, wherein it was observed, "everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action".
15.3.1. As regards the issue of limitation, the Court opined that where a challenge was laid to an instrument upon expiry of the period of limitation, the plaint has to conform to the stipulation of Order 6, Rule 6 of CPC, 1908
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 and must contain a specific pleading of the grounds upon which exemption from limitation may be claimed.
15.3.2. Upon perusal, it may be observed that neither the plaint in the subject suit, nor the proposed amendment to the plaint filed on 04.04.2024, contains any pleading inasmuch as, a ground for exemption from the law of limitation, so as to lay a sustainable challenge to the impugned partition deed dated 22.09.2015 and the gift deeds dated 20.10.2009 and 16.01.2015. As such, where the plaint or the proposed amendment does not contain everything - all those bundle of facts that afford the plaintiff a cause of action, the instant suit cannot be permitted to be maintainable in the present form.
15.4. In US Sasidharan v. K Karunakaran, in Civil Appeal (Election) No. 4030/1987 : DD 23.08.1989, the Apex Court dealt with the case of whether an election petition challenging the election of the respondent No. 1 to the Kerala Legislative Assembly on grounds of corrupt practices was to be rejected as not disclosing a cause of action, on account of the fact that the copy of the petition served on the respondent No. 1 was unaccompanied by the alleged notice, photograph and video cassette which disclosed the commission of the alleged corrupt practices,
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 in which certain civil servants had delivered speeches in furtherance of favourable prospect of the respondent No.1.
15.4.1. The Court opined therein that where a document formed an integral part of an election petition, containing material facts or particulars of corrupt practices, then a copy of a petition without such documents will not be complete and cannot be said to be a true copy of the election petition. The Court further affirmed its earlier decision in the case of Uddhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, (1977) 1 SCC 511, wherein the Court had observed that "failure to plead even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and incomplete allegations of such a charge are liable to be struck off under Order 6, Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code. If the petition is based solely on those allegations, which suffer from lack of material facts, the petition is liable to be summarily rejected for want of cause of action. In the case of a petition suffering from a deficiency of material particulars, the court has a discretion to allow the petitioner to supply the required particulars even after the expiry of limitation".
15.4.2. Similarly, in the case at hand, the respondent-plaintiff has not challenged, within the stipulated time frame, the earlier partition deeds which divided certain suit properties in the schedule herein.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 Furthermore, the plaintiff has not specifically pleaded that only certain properties in the entire list of schedule properties are partible estates (those which were not subject of the earlier partition deeds). As such, properties described in the Tables at paragraphs No. (13) and (14.1.) and at paragraphs No. (14.3), (14.4), (14.5) are impartible estates, and a suit for partition cannot be maintainable against them. Therefore, the plaint lacks sufficient material facts, to establish a cause of action under Order 7, Rule 11(a) of CPC, 1908. Accordingly, the suit cannot be held to be maintainable in respect of only certain suit properties (See, Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, AIR 2023 SC 5516).
15.5. In Manohar Joshi v. Nithin Bhaurao Patil and Anr., in Civil Appeal No. 4973/1993 : DD 11.12.1995, the Apex Court observed in a case related to a challenge to a returned candidate on the grounds of corrupt practice by a returned candidate (or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent), that an election shall be declared to be void, only when there is a specific pleading in the petition that the alleged corrupt practice has materially affected the result of the election in favour of the retuned candidate. The Court observed therein that a Court could not try in issue, an allegation not in the
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 pleading and admit evidence, which traversed beyond pleadings.
15.5.1. The ratio enunciated therein is applicable to the case at hand inasmuch as, a suit for partition cannot be maintainable in respect of already parted estates, in absence of specific pleadings and description of suit properties, distinguishing partible from impartible estates.
16. A comparison of the suit schedule properties herein and those in the proposed amendment leads us to conclude that properties mentioned in the suit schedule are far in excess of those already partitioned, vide partition deeds dated 18.11.1970, 05.05.2000, 22.09.2015. As such, even if the said deeds of partition were to remain unchallenged, the plaintiff shall certainly be at liberty to maintain a suit for partition in respect of all properties not covered by the above partition deeds.
17. Hence, all such properties sought to be included for partition in the plaintiff's suit vide amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, viz. schedule properties 'A' to 'F', are justifiably sustainable, in light of the fact that such proposed amendment does not result in any adverse effect of disturbing any right of the defendants herein, accrued on account of lapse of time. It is, however, needless to mention that an amendment may
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 be permitted only when the subject suit is held to be maintainable and not rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC.
17.1. Besides, the law against suit for partial partition is erected for the purposes of avoiding multiplicity of litigation in relation to partition of the jointly held properties, except where such properties are incapable of partition or held jointly with strangers. Therefore, it is now clear that a suit can be maintainable in respect of all properties not covered by the earlier effected partitions, including the additional properties as sought for, in the schedules 'A' to 'F' of the application for amendment of plaint.
18. However, in addition to the above proposed inclusions, the plaintiff has prayed for additional specific reliefs in the proposed amendment thereto, not featured in the earlier plaint. The plaintiff has sought cancellation of the following:
- partition deed dated 22.09.2015 - effected in favour of the plaintiff through General Power of Attorney dated 03.10.2012, purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants No.1 and 2, and sought to be impugned on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation;
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022
- gift deed dated 16.01.2015 - executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2,
- gift deed dated 20.10.2009 - executed by Smt Lalithamma in favour of the son of defendant No.1.
19. It is pertinent to observe that the application seeking leave for amendment was preferred on 05.04.2024, upon expiry of approximately more than six years since the institution of suit. It is further relevant to note that the application for proposed amendment was filed subsequent to the preferring of the instant petition by the defendant No. 5 on 21.10.2022. The cause of action arose, as pleaded in the plaint, upon the demise of the mother of the plaintiff, Smt. Lalithamma on 26.08.2015, and latest as on the memo dated 24.01.2017 filed by the defendants herein asserting the suit properties to be impartible estates.
20. A perusal of the plaint, more particularly at paragraph no. (14) thereof, indicates that the plaintiff is aware of an earlier effected registered partition, but has sought to impugn the same on the grounds of the same being unequal, and on failure to give exclusive possession to the plaintiff in accordance with the same. The specifics of the same, however, are not disclosed in the plaint.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 20.1. A perusal of the averments in the proposed amendment to the plaint and the reliefs sought therein, further indicates that the plaintiff seeks to impugn the partition deed dated 22.09.2015, upon lapse of the limitation period of three years (as stipulated in the Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963), and furthermore, on the grounds that the said deed was effected through a GPA executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants No. 1 and 2 on 03.10.2012, which was originally so executed for purposes other than partition, but that the defendants No.1 and 2 had effected the said partition deed through fraud and misrepresentation.
21. In response, the petitioner-defendant No. 5 (who is the wife of the late defendant No.2) contends that partitions had been effected earlier between the plaintiff and the defendants No. 1 and 2, and has produced in the memorandum of the instant petition, copies of earlier effected registered partition deeds dated 18.11.1970, 05.05.2000, and 22.09.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 5 submitted that the respondent- plaintiff has had prior knowledge of the said partitions, but elected to only impugn the partition deed of the year 2015 in the proposed amendment, and more so, upon the expiry of the prescribed limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022
22. Article 59 of the Act of 1963 stipulates that the period of limitation to set aside a deed of partition is three years from the date when the plaintiff was apprised of facts entitling him to set aside the impugned deeds. Therefore, the period of limitation to set aside the partition deed executed on 22.09.2015 stood lapsed much prior to the date of the application for the proposed amendment. The allegation of fraud and misrepresentation therefore, in absence of any categorical pleading to the effect that the discovery of the impugned partition deed dated 22.09.2015 occurred after the latest pleaded cause of action, shall have no bearing to vitiate the said deed. The issue of limitation, however, would have been a matter of trial as a mixed question of fact and law, if the plaintiff had not pleaded in the plaint the said dates of the cause of action, as referred in paragraph no. (19) herein.
22.1. Besides, it is gathered upon perusal of the said deed, annexed at document No.6, that the same contains no reference to any incidence of execution of GPA agreement by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants No. 1 and 2. In fact, a bare perusal of the same reveals that the respondent-plaintiff herein has been a signatory as a party-in-person, evidenced by signatures of 'B.S. Mahesh' (i.e., respondent-plaintiff herein), to the name of fourth signatory to the said deed.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022
23. It has been held in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjiv Builders Pvt Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, that all amendments applications ought to be generally allowed unless the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of valuable accrued right, or where allowing of the amendment results in a loss of valid defence by the other side. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further opined that those amendments which changed the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plant, shall not be permissible.
24. In the case at hand, the plaintiff has essentially instituted a suit for partition and separate possession and further sought a declaration to the effect that any alienations of the ancestral and joint family properties made by defendants No. 1 and 2 shall not be binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff however, has not impugned any specific/particular alienation of property by the defendants No. 1 and 2, as prescribed under Order 7, Rule 7 of CPC which mandates that every plaint must state specifically the relief claimed either simply or in the alternative. It was for the first time in the application for amendment of the plaint, preferred on 05.04.2024, that the plaintiff had specifically claimed the ex facie time barred relief of
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 setting aside the partition deed dated 22.09.2015, and cancellation of the gift deeds dated 16.01.2015 and 20.10.2009.
25. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Naryanswamy and Sons and Ors.,(2009) 10 SCC 84, that as a general rule, "the Court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amendment claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application". Hence, the plaintiff's application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint and incorporate upon expiry of the period of limitation, a relief to set aside the earlier partition deed dated 22.09.2015, cannot be sustained.
26. Besides, where reliefs - 'to set aside alienations by defendants of joint family properties' and further, 'to declare them to be not binding as against the share of the plaintiff', are sought to be incorporated in a suit for partition through an amendment to plaint, but upon expiry of the period of limitation - the said time barred reliefs can hardly be considered to be ancillary to the main relief of partition, so as to ignore the limitation applicable to the ancillary reliefs, and adhere to the limitation otherwise applicable to the main reliefs.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022
27. A suit for partition essentially enjoins the Court to determine the entire extent of the joint family nucleus, and any adjudication in matters thereof renders integral the law of limitation applicable to any challenge proposed to be laid by a plaintiff to earlier registered partition deeds, which would have already effected limited division of the partible estate, between the sharer-plaintiffs and defendants.
27.1. No plaintiff can be permitted upon the expiry of the period of limitation, to challenge the properties, which had fallen to the share of the defendants in earlier partitions, for the same having had acquired an absolute and exclusive character upon partition, and having been in settled possession of the defendants throughout the period of limitation.
27.2. Therefore, the respondent-plaintiff herein cannot be permitted to incorporate a time barred claim of the challenge to the partition deed dated 22.09.2015, through amendment to a plaint in a suit for partition, so as to unsettle a settled division of properties, in limited respect of the extents of the parted estate thereto.
28. Similarly, the plaintiff herein cannot be permitted to present an indirect challenge to the division of properties effected in the partition deed dated 18.11.1970, by including such properties in the subject schedule, which
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 had fallen to separate and exclusive possession of the sharers in the said partition. It is settled law that if a law prohibits something from being done directly, the same cannot be accomplished through indirect or disguised methods.
29. As regards the relief for cancellation of the gift deed dated 16.01.2015 - executed by the respondent- plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2, the same cannot be maintained upon expiry of the period of limitation, vide Article 59 of the Act of 1963. In any case, the same is not a matter of partition, as the impugned conveyance itself indicates that the subject properties therein to be separate and exclusive properties of the plaintiff.
30. As regards the relief of cancellation of gift deed dated 20.10.2009, executed by late Smt Lalithamma in favour of unarrayed son of the defendant No.1, in relation to three parcels of land, the same cannot be impugned at this belated stage, upon the expiry of more than 10 years since the expiry of the period of limitation.
31. Before pronouncing the order, it is relevant that authorities produced by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff be addressed.
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 31.1. In the case of Kum. Geetha v.
Nanjundaswamy, AIR 2023 SC 5516, the Apex Court opined that a plaint cannot be rejected in part against some defendants or some properties only, and that a rejection entails a whole and complete dismissal of suit at threshold. Therefore, where a suit is not maintainable in the present form, it ought to be dismissed as a whole at the threshold, with liberty to institute a suit over live and agitable claims.
31.2. In Kamala v. K.T Eswar Sa, AIR 2008 SC 3174 the Apex Court dealt with the case of a suit for partition instituted in 2004, wherein the issue under consideration therein was whether the suit properties were already divided amongst the four sons of the propositus, in an earlier round of litigation conducted in the year 1953.
31.2.1. The Court observed that where a preliminary decree was passed in an earlier suit instituted in the year 1953 - seeking partition in relation to the identical properties but the final decree proceedings therein came to be dropped, a subsequent suit instituted in 2004 seeking partition could be maintained and was not barred as res judicata under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC, when there continued to exist a cloud over the identities of suit properties. Importantly, a suit could be maintainable when
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 the answer to the question of whether there was any property available for partition remained elusive upon the perusal of the plaint averments.
The Court further observed that no amount of evidence on the merits of the matter could be looked into at that stage of considering an application for rejection of the plaint.
31.2.2. In the case at hand, a perusal of the plaint averments, more particularly at paragraph no. (14) thereof, indicates that the plaintiff has been aware of an earlier effected registered partition, but has sought to impugn them as unequal, and on account of failure on part of defendants to give exclusive possession of the share of the plaintiff in accordance with the same. The specifics of the same, however, are not disclosed in the plaint. A perusal of the averments in the proposed amendment to the plaint, filed on 05.04.2024 further indicates that the plaintiff has sought to impugn a partition deed dated 22.09.2015, upon lapse of the limitation period of three years, as stipulated in the Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
31.2.3. Moreover, a perusal of the partition deeds executed in the years 1970 and 2000 and 2015, respectively, as recorded above in the preceding paragraphs no. (13), (14.1), (14.3), (14.4), and (14.5)
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 reveals that the plaintiff has been a party to the same, and cannot now be permitted to upset the same on the grounds of lack of knowledge in respect of the same.
31.2.4. Therefore, in the case at hand, a review of the averments in the plaint does not per se indicate the existence of a cloud of doubt over the identities of all suit properties, and a careful scrutiny of the documents annexed in the instant petition by the petitioner-defendant No. 5 but further confirms the impartible nature of properties as mentioned in the items described in the Table at paragraphs nos. (13) and (14.1.). Hence, properties which were already the subject-matter of earlier rounds of partition cannot be subsequently included in the instant suit for partition, when the earlier deeds of partition remain unchallenged, or where any challenge to them is expressly barred by the statute of limitations. As such, the above case law is applicable to the case at hand.
31.3. In the case of Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd v. Ashok Vidyarthi, AIR 2024 SC 700, the Apex Court reiterated that where the a suit is barred by limitation under the mandatory provision of Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC, the Court cannot but reject the suit at the threshold, and prevent exhaustion of judicial time in agitating stale claims.
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 31.4. In Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar, AIR 2018 SC 2447, the Apex Court dealt with a suit for partition instituted in October, 2013, challenging the registered sale deed dated 18.10.1996, executed by the defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of a deceased, Shri JP Thakkar. Defendants No. 3, 4 and 5 were legal heirs of the said deceased - having succeeded to the latter, upon his demise. The plaintiffs alleged fraud and complete lack of knowledge until 2013, and further asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge of the allegedly fraudulent sale deed.
31.4.1. The Apex Court dismissed the application for rejection of plaint and opined that where the plaint averments did not reveal any pre-existing knowledge of the impugned sale deed prior to the date of the alleged date of knowledge, the issue of limitation shall be a mixed question of fact and law, and a matter for trial. Additionally, it observed that the period of limitation of a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed shall commence from the date of knowledge of the allegedly fraudulent impugned sale deed. The above case-law is inapplicable to the facts of the case at hand, in absence of a specific pleading of discovery of the allegedly fraudulent execution of the partition deed dated 22.09.2015, having been made beyond the latest pleaded date of cause of action, i.e. 24.01.2017. In light thereof, a bare perusal of
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 the said partition deed further reveals that the same contains no reference to any incidence of a GPA agreement, which is morefully described referred to in paragraph No. (22.1) above.
31.5. In the case of KC Laxmana v. KC Chandrappa Gowda, AIRONLINE 2022 SC 556, the Apex Court dealt with a suit for partition and separate possession instituted by the plaintiff-son instituted in the month of October, 1991 (11.10.1991) contesting the gift/settlement deed executed in the month of March, 1980 (22.03.1980) executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 2. As regards the issue of limitation, the Apex Court observed therein that the governing article in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 was Article 109, which stipulates a period of twelve years from when the alienee takes possession of the property, for the purposes of a suit to set aside the father's alienation of ancestral property under Hindu Mithakashara law. Therefore, it may be reasonably inferred that a suit instituted upon expiry of the said period of limitation warrants its dismissal at the threshold.
31.6 In the case of Ganapati Santaram Bhosale & Anr v. Ramachandra Subba Rao Kulkarni & Anr, AIR 1985 Kant 143, the Division Bench of this Court dealt
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 with connected appeals preferred against the decretal of suits filed in 1972 and 1975 seeking partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit properties, which were alienated by the major brothers of the plaintiff during, the minority of the plaintiff. This Court drew a distinction between 'alienation made by a guardian for the benefit of the minor or minor's estate' and 'an alienation of joint family property by karta or guardian or de facto guardian in which the minor has only an interest, and concluded that any challenge to the alienation of latter nature shall be governed by Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - which gives a limitation period of twelve years from when the alienee takes possession, for the purposes of a suit to set aside any alienation made by a father of the plaintiff governed by the Hindu Mitakshara law.
31.6.1. Additionally, the Court observed that a plaintiff cannot lay a challenge to any alienation of the joint family property or a part thereof, made by a guardian during the minority of the coparcener-plaintiff, for the purpose of legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate. There is no quarrel with the above proposition but the ratio laid down in the above case law does not enure to the benefit of the respondent-plaintiff.
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022
32. In view of the above, the subject plaint deserves to be rejected at threshold for want of a specifically pleaded cause of action, which is not barred by the statute of limitations. In other words, the subject plaint warrants rejection for want of a specific pleading and description of all suit properties as partible estates. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to blend together partible and impartible estates - those having been separated on account of earlier effected registered partitions, in a disguised attempt to upset earlier effected partition, which is otherwise expressly barred by the law of limitation.
32.1 In light of the decision laid down in Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, AIR 2023 SC 5516, that a plaint cannot be permitted to be maintained against only some of the suit schedule properties, and that a rejection entails whole and complete dismissal of suit at threshold, the subject plaint in O.S. No.10/2017 warrants rejection for want of a prosecutable cause of action.
32.2. Therefore, liberty is reserved with the respondent-plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for partition in respect of only 'partible' joint family properties not covered by the deeds of partition dated 18.11.1970, 05.05.2000, 22.09.2015, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, I order the following:
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10972 CRP No. 475 of 2022 ORDER i. The instant civil revision petition is allowed, and the plaint in O.S. No. No. 10/2017 stands rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC, 1908.
ii. Liberty is reserved with the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for partition and the consequential relief of separate possession, in respect of lands/properties not covered under the partition deeds dated 18.11.1970, 05.05.2000 and 22.09.2015, in accordance with law.
iii. Furthermore, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to institute a suit for partition in respect of lands/properties that are the subject matter of gift deeds dated 20.10.2009 and 16.01.2015.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 143