Karnataka High Court
Sri. Kariyappa vs Smt. K P Shwetha on 13 January, 2026
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1993
CRP No. 345 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 345 OF 2024 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SRI.KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O LATE ANDANIGOWDA
R/AT KIRANGOOR VILLAGE,
K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 807
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAGANNATHAN P.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. K P SHWETHA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
D/O PUTTEGOWDA
R/AT NO.104,
YELEKERE VILLAGE
Digitally signed
by JUANITA PANDAVAPURA TALUK
THEJESWINI MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 807
Location: HIGH 2. SMT K P MADHUMATHI
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
D/O PUTTEGOWDA
R/AT NO.243,
KIRANGOOR VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 807
3. SRI PUTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O LATE ANDANIGOWDA
R/AT KIRANGOOR VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1993
CRP No. 345 of 2024
HC-KAR
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 807
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAGHU M N.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2;
NIOTICE SERVED TO R-3 AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2024
PASSED ON IA NO.5 IN OS NO.317/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA., DISMISSING THE
IA NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W
SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.317/2018 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Srirangapatna, being aggrieved of the rejection of his application in IA No.5 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of CPC.
2. Though the matter is coming up for 'Admission', with the consent of the learned counsels on both the sides the matter is taken up for final disposal. -3-
NC: 2026:KHC:1993 CRP No. 345 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court.
4. The plaintiffs being the daughters of defendant No.1 filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of their legitimate shares in the suit schedule property. There are two items of the suit schedule property. Insofar as item No.1 is concerned, there is an averment in the plaint that it is part of the ancestral property and the propositus is Sri Andanigowda, the father of defendants in the suit. Sri Andanigowda had six children and it is admitted in the plaint that during the lifetime of Sri Andanigowda, the joint family properties were divided between the family members on 03.12.1997. It is stated that Item No.1 fell to the share of defendant No.1, that is the father of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 is one of the brothers of the 1st defendant. It is averred in the plaint that one of the younger brothers of the defendants, namely Sri Somu, purchased item No.2 of the suit -4- NC: 2026:KHC:1993 CRP No. 345 of 2024 HC-KAR schedule property under registered sale deed dated 22.04.2000. However, Sri Somu died unmarried and issueless on 05.03.2002. It is stated that after the death of Sri Somu his brothers and sisters, including the defendants in the suit entered into a partition and divided the said property belonging to Sri Somu amongst themselves. It is stated that in the partition, two of the brothers namely Kumara and Manju got 10 guntas each out of 21 guntas. Nevertheless, the 2nd defendant without knowledge of the 1st defendant got the katha transferred in his name. It is stated that in order to deprive the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs, the defendants have colluded amongst themselves and have tried to alienate the suit schedule properties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that insofar as item No.1 is concerned, since there is a clear admission of the plaintiffs in the plaint that on 03.12.1997 the joint family properties were divided amongst the family members during the lifetime of Sri -5- NC: 2026:KHC:1993 CRP No. 345 of 2024 HC-KAR Andanigowda and item No.1 of the suit schedule property fell to the share of defendant No.1, it would be impermissible for the plaintiffs to seek to reopen the partition. In so far as item No.2 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, since the property admittedly was purchased by Sri Somu, the uncle of the plaintiffs, and that Sri Somu died intestate, it should devolve in terms of the general rules of succession as provided in Section 8.
6. Learned counsel submits that firstly the property would devolve upon the heirs being the relatives specified in class 1 of the schedule. Class 1 of the Schedule does not enable any of the parties to the suit to claim the suit schedule property, since they are not class 1 heirs. Therefore, in terms of clause(b) of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), since there is no class I heir to Sri Somu, then the property would devolve upon the heirs being the relatives -6- NC: 2026:KHC:1993 CRP No. 345 of 2024 HC-KAR specified in class 2 of the schedule. Further, in terms of Section 9, among the heirs specified in the schedule, those in Clause (1) I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all the other heirs; those in the first entry in Class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry. Similarly those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry and so on. Learned counsel would therefore submit that since the defendants who are the brothers of Somu fall under second entry in Class II, the plaintiffs who are admittedly the nieces of Sri Somu and since defendant No.1, who is the father of the plaintiffs was alive, if at all there is a partition the brothers and sisters of Sri Somu will get a right to seek a share in the property left behind by the plaintiff. At any rate, the plaintiffs have no right to claim partition in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Learned counsel submits that defendant No.2 has nothing to say in respect of item No.1. The defendant No.2 is concerned with Item -7- NC: 2026:KHC:1993 CRP No. 345 of 2024 HC-KAR No.2 of the suit schedule property which was left behind by Sri Somu.
7. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that after the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.317/2018, which is the subject matter of this litigation, defendant No.1 Sri Puttegowda filed O.S.No.149/2023 against all his sisters and brothers where this petitioner is defendant No.10. Learned counsel submits that in the said suit also, both the items of the suit schedule property have been described along with one more property. Learned counsel submits that since there is no cause of action and the suit is barred by law, as noticed herein above, the plaint requires to be rejected.
8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits on instructions that the plaintiffs are seeking to amend the plaint to delete item No.2 from the suit schedule properties.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:1993 CRP No. 345 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. Having heard the learned counsel for defendant No.2 and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for defendant No.2. Insofar as item No.1 of the suit schedule property is concerned, since admittedly there was a partition in the year 1997, long before the amendment was brought to Section 6 in the year 2005, and in view of sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the Act in respect of a partition that has taken place before 20.12.2004, the same cannot be permitted to be reopened.
10. Insofar as item No.2 is concerned, the learned counsel for defendant No.2 is right in his submission that in view of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the plaintiffs who are admittedly the nieces of Sri Somu and they do not fall under second entry of class 2, the plaintiffs will not get any right to seek partition. On the other hand, the sisters and brothers of Sri Somu fall under the second entry of -9- NC: 2026:KHC:1993 CRP No. 345 of 2024 HC-KAR class 2 heirs and therefore they will have a right to partition the properties left behind by Sri Somu.
11. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the application filed by defendant No.2 invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the CPC should have been allowed by the trial court.
12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.03.2024 in O.S.No.317/2018 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.5 filed by defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of CPC is allowed. The plaint in O.S.No.317/2018 is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY