Karnataka High Court
K T Govinde Gowda vs K N Rangaswamy on 13 July, 2023
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:24380
CRP No. 186 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.186 OF 2022 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. K T GOVINDE GOWDA
S/O LATE THMME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
2. ANURADHA
W/O K T GOVINDE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
3. SUSHMA G GOWDA
D/O K T GOVINDE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T 4. SWETHA G GOWDA
Location: HIGH D/O K T GOVINDE GOWDA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1 to 4 ARE
R/AT No. 341, 16TH MAIN
M C LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560040
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C G DILEEP GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:24380
CRP No. 186 of 2022
AND:
1. K N RANGASWAMY
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT B KATEEHALLI
FRONT OF UNITED SCHOOL
SUBHASNAGAR, 1ST CROSS ROAD
ARASIKERE ROAD
HASSAN - 573201
2. SHIVASHANKAR @ HANUMEGOWDA
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT C HONNENAHALLI GRAMA
(VADARAHATTI) M SHIVARA DAKALE
BALGATTE POST, BAGUR HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
3. ASHOK
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT SITE No.1, 4TH MAI ROAD
ANJANADRI LAYOUT
SANJEEVININAGAR
VISWANEEDAM POST
BENGALURU - 560091
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2022 PASSED ON IA
No.IV IN OS No.205/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDE AND CJM, HASSAN AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:24380
CRP No. 186 of 2022
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. The order challenged before this Court is to the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC wherein contended that the property inherited from female cannot be an ancestral property and therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable. It is further contended that the suit is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties and the properties. It is also the contention that the suit is filed by producing false family tree and narrated false and fake stories which is not maintainable. The said application is resisted by the plaintiffs on the ground that whether the property is an ancestral and joint family property or self-acquired property as claimed by the defendants is a disputed fact and the same cannot be decided in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The Trial Court having considered the grounds urged -4- NC: 2023:KHC:24380 CRP No. 186 of 2022 in the application as well as in the objection and also the citation which has been relied upon by the defendants, in detail discussed and comes to the conclusion that the defence of the defendants cannot be decided in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 and only, the Court has to look into the plaint averments and said opinion is formed by the Trial Court is based on the settled principles of law. Whether the property is an ancestral and joint family property or it is an inherited by female members has to be decided only on merits.
3. The other contention is with regard to non- joinder of necessary parties and the same also has to be considered at the time of trial. The Court has to look into only the averments of the plaint and on perusal of the plaint averments, in paragraph 14, cause of action has been stated and it is also specifically pleaded with regard to seeking the relief of partition. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the -5- NC: 2023:KHC:24380 CRP No. 186 of 2022 application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and hence, no merit in the revision petition.
4. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN