Karnataka High Court
Late Sri. K. Byrappa vs Smt. Puttamadamma on 18 December, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:54302
CRP No. 433 of 2023
C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.433 OF 2023
C/W CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.429 OF 2023
IN CRP No. 433/2023
BETWEEN:
1. LATE SRI. K. BYRAPPA,
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH,
R/AT 525, 10TH MAIN, MC LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 040
SINCE DEAD
REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
B MEENA KUMARI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT A-403, 4TH FLOOR,
RNS SHAKTHI NIVAS APARTMENTS,
TUMKUR ROAD,
GORAGUNTEPALYA,
Digitally YESHWANTHPURA,
signed by BENGALURU - 560 022
MALATESH ...PETITIONER
KC (BY SRI. ASHOK G V, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SMT. ANKAMMA (DEAD)
SMT BHAGYA,
W/O MAHADEVU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT VARUNA VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 010
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:54302
CRP No. 433 of 2023
C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023
HC-KAR
2. SRI PRAKASHA
S/O LATE ANKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK-570 010
3. SRI RAMESHA
S/O LATE ANKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK- 570 010
4. SRI SHANKARA
S/O LATE ANKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK-570 010
5. SRI MAHADEVU
S/O LATE ANKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK-570 010
6. SRI ANKAPPA
S/O LATE MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT C/O MADAIAH
NO. 155, T N PURA ROAD,
ALANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK-570 010
7. SMT JYOTHI
D/O LATE MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:54302
CRP No. 433 of 2023
C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023
HC-KAR
R/AT C/O MADAIAH,
NO 155, T N PURA ROAD,
ALANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK
8. SRI GURU
S/O LATE MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT C/O MADAIAH,
NO 155, T N PURA ROAD,
ALANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK-570 010
9. GEETHA
D/O LATE MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT C/O MADAIAH,
NO.155, T N PURA ROAD,
ALANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK- 570 010
10. SRI NIRANJAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE K BYRAPPA,
GANESH PRINTERS OPPOSITE
TO SHEETAL FASHIONS
NO.18 E MAIN, PIPELINE ROAD
VIJAYANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 040
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI/SMT. PRASANNA V R, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 TO R5, R8, R9, R10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 22.08.25, NOTICE TO R6 AND R7 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:54302
CRP No. 433 of 2023
C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.8 IN
O.S.NO.1865/2013 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, REJECTING THE IA NO.8 FILED
UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
IN CRP NO. 429/2023
BETWEEN:
1. LATE SRI. K. BYRAPPA,
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
R/AT #525, 10TH MAIN, MC LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGARA
BENGALURU-560040
SINCE DEAD
REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
B MEENA KUMARI
AGED 62 YEARS
R/A A-403, 4TH FLOOR,
RNS SHAKTHI NIVAS APARTMENTS
TUMKUR ROAD
GORAGUNTEPALYA
YESHWANTHPURA
BENGALURU-560022
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK G V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PUTTAMADAMMA
W/O LATE JAVARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/A 630, LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE
VARUNA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:54302
CRP No. 433 of 2023
C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023
HC-KAR
2. SRI ANKAIAH
S/O LATE CHIKKACHENNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/A CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE
VARUNA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK-570 010
3. SRI NIRANJAN
S/O LATE K BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
GANESHA PRINTERS
OPPOSITE TO SHEETAL FASHIONS
NO.18, E-MAIN, PIPELINE ROAD
VIJAYANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 040
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI/SMT. PRASANNA V R, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 26.11.2025 NO NECESSITY TO BRING
LR OF R2)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED ON I.A.No.13 IN
O.S.No.1864/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, REJECTING THE I.A.No.
13 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (a) AND (d) R/W
SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR
REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:54302
CRP No. 433 of 2023
C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Ashok G.V., learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
2. Smt. B.Meenakumari who is defendant No.9(b) in O.S.No.1865/2013, who is defendant No.2(b) in O.S.No. 1864/2013 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, has filed Civil Revision Petition No.433/2023 and Civil Revision Petition No.429/2023 respectively, challenging the validity of the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.8, whereby application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be dismissed in both the suits.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Civil Revision Petitions are as under:
A suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property' came to be filed by the plaintiffs.-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR SCHEDULE IN O.S.No.1865/2013 (CRP No.433/2023) Landed property bearing Sy.No.82/1A, measuring 09 guntas and Sy.No.82/1B measuring 39 guntas in all 1 acre 8 guntas situated Chikkahalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore taluk and Dist. Bounded on:
East by: Remaining property in land bearing Sy.No.82/1A, West by: Land bearing Sy.No.85, South by: Land bearing Sy.No.85 North by: Land of Koppalu Puttaswamy and Sivananjappa SCHEDULE IN O.S.No.1864/2013 (CRP No.429/2023) Item No.1: Landed property bearing Sy.No.82/1B, measuring 39 guntas situated at Chikkahalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore taluk and Dist. Bounded on:
East by: Property bearing Sy.No.82/2 West by: Land belongs to Kempamma South by: Land of Kippalu Puttaswamy North by : Land of Rajappa Item No.2: Site property bearing Janjar No.255, property No.245, measuring East to West 30 feet North to South 40 feet situated at Chikkahalli village, Varuna hobli, Mysore taluk and Dist. Bounded on:-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR East by: Property bearing Janjar No. 130, Property No.121.
West by: Road South by: Galli North by: Ankaiah property Item No.3: Site property bearing Janjaar No.130, Property No.121 measuring East to West 25 feet North to South 30 feet, situated at Chikkahalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore taluk and Dist. Bounded on:
East by: Road West by: Property bearing Janjar No.255, property No.245 South by: Mantelingaiah's site North by: Madaiah's property"
4. In the suit, it is contented that Doddachennaiah and Kempamma had five children viz., Ankamma-plaintiff No.1, Puttamadamma and Ankaiah who are no more, defendant Nos.1 to 4 are legal heirs of deceased Ankaiah, Madaiah died, defendant Nos.5 to 8 and second plaintiff are legal heirs of deceased Madaiah.
5. It is further contented that father of the first plaintiff possessed ancestral properties which are the suit properties. Father of the plaintiffs passed away around 30 years ago leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to -9- NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR 8 as his legal heirs. After the death of the father of the first plaintiff, suit property was managed and was treated as joint family property.
6. It is further contented that first plaintiff being the daughter of the second plaintiff being the granddaughter of Doddachennaiah she is also entitled for the share in the suit property.
7. Further contention of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and recently she came to know that defendant Nos.1 to 8 along with Kempamma, wife of Dodachennaiah and late Ankaiah, late Madaiah, colluding with each other, sold the suit properties in favour of defendant No.9 through a registered sale deed dated 24.11.1995.
8. It is also contented that plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the sale deed when defendant No.9 started interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property and therefore, sought for her share in the suit property.
9. Pursuant to the suit summons, revision petitioner being the defendant No.9(b) and 2(b) in both the suits
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR O.S.No.1865 of 2013 and O.S.No.1864/2013 entered appearance and contented that suit is to be dismissed.
10. They also filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC separately seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action to the suit. They would further contend that the alienation has taken place in the year 1995 and as such, suit filed in the year 2013 is not only time barred but also saved under the proviso to amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act which came into effect from 09.09.2005. Therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable and sought for rejection of the plaint.
11. Plaintiff opposed the application on two counts basically that alienation did not bind the shares of the plaintiff and limitation. Therefore, plea that the suit is barred by limitation is per se not acceptable.
12. Second count on which the plaintiff opposed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 is that the alienation is by the brother of the plaintiff and therefore, such alienation would not bind the plaintiff.
13. Learned trial Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the application filed by the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR defendant No. 2(b) and 9(b) in O.S.No.1864/2013 and O.S.No.1865/2013 by impugned order.
14. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.9(b) and defendant 2(b) respectively have filed the present revision petitions practically on similar grounds.
15. Sri Ashok G.V., learned counsel for the petitioner in both the revision petitions, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that the order of the trial Court is per se bad in law in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v.
Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1, Uma Devi v.
Anand Kumar reported in (2025) 5 SCC 198 and SEBI v.
Rajkumar Nagpal, (2023) 8 SCC 274 and in the case of Vishwas Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 177, High Court of Bombay and Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shivalingamma & Others vs. Chikkeeramma & Others in RFA No. 1650 of 2018, DD: 9th April 2021, High Court Of Karnataka.
16. The relevant paragraphs of those decisions reads as under:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1
56. The daughter is treated as a coparcener in the same manner as a son by birth with the same rights in coparcenary property and liabilities. However, the proviso of sub-section (1) contains a non obstante clause providing that nothing contained in the sub-
section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of the property which had taken place before 20-12-2004.
60. The amended provisions of Section 6(1) provide that on and from the commencement of the Amendment Act, the daughter is conferred the right. Section 6(1)(a) makes daughter by birth a coparcener "in her own right" and "in the same manner as the son". Section 6(1)(a) contains the concept of the unobstructed heritage of Mitakshara coparcenary, which is by virtue of birth. Section 6(1)(b) confers the same rights in the coparcenary property "as she would have had if she had been a son". The conferral of right is by birth, and the rights are given in the same manner with incidents of coparcenary as that of a son and she is treated as a coparcener in the same manner with the same rights as if she had been a son at the time of birth. Though the rights can be claimed, w.e.f. 9-9-2005, the provisions are of retroactive application; they confer benefits based on the antecedent event, and the Mitakshara coparcenary law shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter as a coparcener. At the same time, the legislature has provided savings by adding a proviso that any disposition or alienation, if there be any testamentary disposition of the property or partition which has taken place before 20-12-2004, the date on which the Bill was presented in the Rajya Sabha, shall not be invalidated.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR
61. The prospective statute operates from the date of its enactment conferring new rights. The retrospective statute operates backwards and takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws. A retroactive statute is the one that does not operate retrospectively. It operates in futuro. However, its operation is based upon the character or status that arose earlier. Characteristic or event which happened in the past or requisites which had been drawn from antecedent events. Under the amended Section 6, since the right is given by birth, that is, an antecedent event, and the provisions operate concerning claiming rights on and from the date of the Amendment Act.
68. Considering the principle of coparcenary that a person is conferred the rights in the Mitakshara coparcenary by birth, similarly, the daughter has been recognised and treated as a coparcener, with equal rights and liabilities as of that of a son. The expression used in Section 6 is that she becomes coparcener in the same manner as a son. By adoption also, the status of coparcener can be conferred. The concept of uncodified Hindu law of unobstructed heritage has been given a concrete shape under the provisions of Sections 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b). Coparcener right is by birth. Thus, it is not at all necessary that the father of the daughter should be living as on the date of the amendment, as she has not been conferred the rights of a coparcener by obstructed heritage. According to the Mitakshara coparcenary Hindu law, as administered which is recognised in Section 6(1), it is not necessary that there should be a living coparcener or father as on the date of the amendment to whom the daughter would succeed. The daughter would step into the coparcenary as that of a son by taking birth before or after the Act. However, daughter born before can claim these rights only with effect from the date of the amendment i.e. 9-9-2005 with
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR saving of past transactions as provided in the proviso to Section 6(1) read with Section 6(5).
Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar, (2025) 5 SCC 198
10. The trial court, considering these facts, allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC and dismissed the suit, finding no cause of action for filing the suit. However, the appellate court found that there were triable issues that required consideration. The appellate court was of the opinion that the plaintiffs had a legitimate claim over the joint family properties, and in the absence of any notice to the plaintiffs regarding the partition, the suit was remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration.
12. In the case at hand, partition took place way back in the year 1968, which is evident from the revenue record entries. The suit is filed in the year 2023 i.e. after a period of 55 years. Further, many of the family members had executed registered sale deeds in the year 1978. These sale deeds have been attached, and on perusal it is observed that these were in fact registered sale deeds.
14. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the partition that took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them being registered documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma, these sale deeds have not been challenged, neither has partition been sought. Thus, the suit (filed in the year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years.
SEBI v. Rajkumar Nagpal, (2023) 8 SCC 274
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR
100. In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma [Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 :
(2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 119] this Court described the nature of prospective, retrospective, and retroactive laws : (SCC p. 53, para 61) "61. The prospective statute operates from the date of its enactment conferring new rights. The retrospective statute operates backwards and takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws. A retroactive statute is the one that does not operate retrospectively. It operates in futuro.
However, its operation is based upon the character or status that arose earlier. Characteristic or event which happened in the past or requisites which had been drawn from antecedent events."
101. The terms "retrospective" and "retroactive" are often used interchangeably. However, their meanings are distinct. This Court succinctly appreciated the difference between these concepts in State Bank's Staff Union (Madras Circle) v. Union of India [State Bank's Staff Union (Madras Circle) v. Union of India, (2005) 7 SCC 584 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 994] :
" "Retroactivity" is a term often used by lawyers but rarely defined. On analysis it soon becomes apparent, moreover, that it is used to cover at least two distinct concepts. The first, which may be called "true retroactivity", consists in the application of a new rule of law to an act or transaction which was completed before the rule was promulgated. The second concept, which will be referred to as "quasi-retroactivity", occurs when a new rule of law is applied to an act or transaction in the process of completion....The foundation of these concepts is the distinction between
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR completed and pending transactions...." [T.C. Hartley, The Foundations of European Community Law 129 (1981).]
102. Many decisions of this Court define "retroactivity" to mean laws which destroy or impair vested rights. In real terms, this is the definition of "retrospectivity" or "true retroactivity". "Quasi- retroactivity" or simply "retroactivity" on the other hand is a law which is applicable to an act or transaction that is still underway. Such an act or transaction has not been completed and is in the process of completion. Retroactive laws also apply where the status or character of a thing or situation arose prior to the passage of the law. Merely because a law operates on certain circumstances which are antecedent to its passing does not mean that it is retrospective.
103. In the present case, RCFL issued the debentures and defaulted on the payments to the debenture-holders prior to the issuance of the SEBI Circular. However, as of 13-10-2020 (the date on which the SEBI Circular came into force), a compromise or agreement on the restructuring of the debt owed by RCFL did not exist. The debenture-holders were not vested with any rights with respect to the resolution of RCFL's debt. The existence of the debt and the subsequent default by RCFL was the status of events, which existed prior to 13-10-2020. Once it came into force, the SEBI Circular applied to the manner of resolution of debt, as specified therein.
104. Even assuming that debenture-holders were vested with the right to sanction a compromise or arrangement in terms of the special majority in Clause 23 to the Fifth Schedule of the Debenture Trust Deed, they were divested of such a right upon the issuance of the SEBI Circular. Clause 59 of the Debenture Trust Deed stipulates that any provision
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR in the Debenture Trust Deed which is in conflict with the 1993 Regulations is null and void. In so doing, it lays down a trigger for the divestment of rights under the Debenture Trust Deed. A contractually vested right may be taken away by the operation of a statutory instrument. A fortiori, in the present case, the SEBI Circular owes its existence to statutory powers conferred by a special legislation enacted with a view to protect the interests of investors and to ensure the stable and orderly growth and development of the market for securities.
Vishwas Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1770
23. The traditional vested rights Doctrine is based on the principle i.e. State has the power to prescribe the Rules of conduct for transaction or occurrences that take place on its own territory. Once the last event of the transaction or occurrence takes place on the territory of the State the parties to it acquire vested right under Law of that jurisdiction.
24. A future interest is vested if it meets the requirement of there being no condition precedent to the interest.
Shivalingamma & Others vs. Chikkeeramma & Others in RFA No. 1650 of 2018 (Division Bench) of High Court of Karnataka; DD: 9th April 2021
11. In view of the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 after the amendment Act of 2005, nothing contained therein shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.
15. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma -vs-Rakesh Sharma and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at paragraph-129 as under:
129. Resultantly, we answer the reference as under:
(i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.
(ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004.
(iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005.
(iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class I as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal.
(v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly.
16. For the reasons stated above and in view of the principles enunciated in the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court allowing the application filed by the defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and rejecting the plaint as barred by law under the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (amendment) Act, 2005, is just and proper. The appellants have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR
17. Sri Ashok G.V., inviting attention of this court into the paragraph Nos.56 and 60 of Vineeta Sharma case supra and tried to distinguish the observations made by the Supreme Court insofar as substitution of the original enactment by placing reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vishwas Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1770 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SEBI v. Rajkumar Nagpal reported in (2023) 8 SCC 274 as to how doctrine of retroactive is to be applied in a given case and as such, in view of language employed in the proviso to amendment Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 the Courts cannot blindly allow the suit to continue which is nothing but abuse of process of law and in such cases, plaint is to be rejected by exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.
18. Per contra, Sri V.R.Prasanna, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned orders.
19. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this court perused the material on record meticulously.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR
20. On such perusal of the material on record, first respondent is the plaintiff in both these revision petitions who filed O.S.No.1864/2013 and O.S.No.1865/2013 with a prayer for partition and separate possession in respect of the aforesaid suit properties:
21. The plaintiff has based the claim as could be seen from the plaint averments referred to supra, stating that he being the granddaughter of Dodda Chennaiah is entitled for the share in the property.
22. It is also contented that it is the brother of the plaintiff who has alienated the property to the revision petitioner in both these cases who had no power to alienate the same in view of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005.
23. In the judgment of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph No.129 it has been held as under:
129. Resultantly, we answer the reference as under:
(i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR
(ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004.
(iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005.
(iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class I as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal.
(v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly.
24. As could be seen from the answer recorded on a reference in sub paragraphs 4 and 5, it is crystal clear that what is to be looked into while considering the plaint to be rejected or not is, death of common prepositous and by then the female coparcener was born or in the womb.
25. However, in a given case where the oral partition is supported by public documents or partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of Court, a trial Court may accept such plea.
26. In other words, there is no hard and fast rule that wherever the oral partition is pleaded, or for that matter registered partition has taken place excluding the female coparcener, would ipso facto act as a embargo to file a suit seeking the share.
27. Insofar as the observations that has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the paragraphs aforesaid in Vineeta Sharma and two other judgments relied on by the counsel for petitioner and to explain
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR that as to how the doctrine of retroactive is to be applied, this Court is of the considered opinion that same cannot be the subject matter of an enquiry in a revision petition challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, as material facts are to be established by the parties in the trial by placing material evidence on record.
28. Further, when there is an authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma while answering the reference in paragraph 129 of the said Judgment, referred to supra, further enquiry in a revision petition having regard to the limited scope of revision jurisdiction is totally uncalled for.
29. Therefore, suffice to say that the alienation has taken place that too by another coparcener being the brother of the plaintiff, ignoring the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property in the respective suits, an enquiry has to be held whether such alienation would bind the plaintiff inasmuch as he was not having any right as on the date of alienation in respect of the suit property, in view of the proviso to amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act or not.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54302 CRP No. 433 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 429 of 2023 HC-KAR
30. Therefore, the dismissal of the application by the trial Court if not in happy words, needs no interference by this Court under the revisional jurisdiction.
31. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
(ii) The parties are at liberty to canvass all favourable contentions before the trial Court in accordance with law and the same shall be considered by the learned trial Judge uninfluenced by the reasons assigned while dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm/MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39