Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
B.S. Lalitha And Others – Appellants
Versus
Bhuvanesh And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7939 of 2026 (Arising Out Of SLP (C) No. 23709 of 2024)
Decided On : 15-05-2026
Key Points: - The Supreme Court held that the second Order VII Rule 11 application (I.A. IV) is barred by res judicata because the identical issue was decided in the first Order VII Rule 11 proceedings (R.F.A. No. 168 of 2009, final 31.01.2013) (!) . - Section 6(5) of the H.S. Act is a saving clause with narrow, strict application and does not create a jurisdictional bar to filing a suit for partition; it preserves pre-2004 partitions but does not extinguish independent rights under Section 8 arising from intestate death (1985) prior to the 2005 Amendment (!) (!) (!) . - The daughters have an independent right under Section 8 as Class I heirs upon the intestate death of their father in 1985, which is independent of the 2005 Amendment and not extinguished by Section 6(5) (!) (!) . - The High Court erred in concluding that Section 6(5) bars the suit and in rejecting the plaint at threshold; the Trial Court’s order dismissing I.A. IV should be restored, and the plaint restored for trial (!) . - The Court clarifies that Vineeta Sharma does not alter the independent right of daughters under Section 8 or the finality of the 2013 order regarding res judicata; the saving clause does not override pre-existing rights under Section 8 (!) (!) . - The suit is to be maintained at least to the extent of the daughters’ share in the propositus’ property; the trial is to adjudicate merits including partition validity and devolution questions (!) (!) . - Status quo on subject properties to continue; Trial Court to proceed expeditiously (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of intestate death and suit (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. prior order vii rule 11 and remand history (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. impugned high court revision allowing plaint rejection (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. arguments on res judicata and section 6(5) (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. res judicata analysis barring second application (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 6. narrow scope of section 6(5) saving clause (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 7. independent section 8 rights unaffected by amendment (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 8. appeal allowed plaint restored for trial (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75) |
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal, directed against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2024 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Civil Revision Petition No. 144 of 2023, whereby the revision petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (legal representatives of Defendant No. 4 in the suit), stood allowed setting aside the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No. 5352/2007, allowing I.A. No. IV filed under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, ‘the CPC’), and rejecting the plaint.
3. The central question that arises in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in allowing a second application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in a suit for partition filed by the daughters of a Hindu male who died intestate, when an earlier application under Order VII Rule 11(d) raising substantially the same issue had been dismissed by the High Court itself in Regular First Appeal No. 168 of 2009, and that order had attained finality. The appeal also raises the connected question of whether Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter, ‘the H.S. Act’), as substituted by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005) (hereinafter, ‘the 2005 Amendment’), operates as a jurisdictional bar to the institution of a suit for partition, or whether it is in the nature of a saving clause only.
4. Sri B.M. Seenappa (hereinafter, 'the propositus') died intestate on 06.03.1985. He was survived by three daughters, namely, B.S. Lalitha, B.S. Vasanthi, and B.S. Jayanthi (Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 herein, who were the plaintiffs in the suit); his widow, Smt. Lakshmidevamma (Defendant No. 1 in the suit); and four sons, namely, B.S. Subhas (Defendant No. 2), B.S. Jai Prakash (Defendant No. 3), B.S. Ramesh (Defendant No. 4, since deceased, now represented by his sons Bhuvanesh and Venkatesh, being Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein), and B.S. Ravindranath (Defendant No. 5). The widow and the sons/legal representatives, are the Respondents before this Court.
5. According to the defendants, the properties of the propositus were divided orally among the sons on 06.09.1985 in the presence of Panchayatdars, pursuant to oral directions given by the propositus before his death. It is further claimed by the defendants that on 25.10.1988, money was paid to the three daughters, and they endorsed a written family partition document (Palupatti) as consenting witnesses, recording their no-objection for the brothers to divide the properties among themselves.
6. The appellants dispute both the nature and validity of these transactions. The plaint does not acknowledge or admit the Palupatti of 1988 or any oral partition; it treats the registered Partition Deed dated 16.06.2000 as the only relevant partition and characterises it as having been done “secretly” on the back of the plaintiffs. This deed was executed among the mother and the four sons whereby the properties of the propositus were divided exclusively amongst the sons and the mother. The three daughters were not par
Section 6(5) is a narrow saving clause not a jurisdictional bar; res judicata applies to successive Order VII Rule 11 applications; daughters retain independent Section 8 succession rights unaffected....
The judgment reinforces daughters' coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession Act, stating that alienation by male relatives does not bar the daughters' claims for partition of property.
The amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act apply to pending proceedings and confer equal rights to daughters in a coparcenary property. The rights of daughters are by birth and n....
Partition – Decree - When Apex Court held final decree is always required to be in conformity with preliminary decree but that does not mean that preliminary decree before final decree is passed cann....
The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act grants daughters equal rights as coparceners, allowing them to claim shares in ancestral properties irrespective of their birth date.
The court affirmed daughters' coparcener rights under the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing that prior sales cannot negate their claims to jointly inherited property.
There is no legal embargo against addition of any new party after a preliminary decree in suit for partition has been passed because suit for partition is disposed of only when final decree is passed....
The court affirmed that ancestral property remains so despite partition, and daughters are entitled to equal shares under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
