Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.I. Arun, J.
H.P. Chikkarama Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Kanthamma - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 431 of 2014
Decided On : 14-09-2020
Harish H V, Advocate, N.K. Ramesh, Advocate, K.B.S. Manian, Advocate, M.U. Poonacha, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of a party's right over properties due to registered partitions and sale prior to the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is a matter of trial and cannot be determined solely based on pleadings.
Headnote:
Hindu Succession Act - Partition and Sale Prior to Amendment - Sections 6, 6-A, 6-B, 6-C - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, defendant Nos.13 and 14, challenged the rejection of their application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the plaintiff, respondent No.1, had no right over the properties in question due to the registered partitions and sale prior to the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The matter was remanded back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Finding of the Court:
The Court dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing that the issue of whether the properties were self-acquired or joint family properties and whether respondent No.1 had a right over them is a matter of trial. The Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Issues: The main issue was whether respondent No.1 had a right over the properties in question due to the registered partitions and sale prior to the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the issue of respondent No.1's right over the properties is a matter of trial and cannot be determined solely based on the pleadings in the plaint.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
JUDGMENT
M I Arun, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2014 passed by XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-7) on I.A.No.2/2012 in O.S.No.7425/2011, the petitioners, who are defendant Nos.13 and 14 in the original suit and the applicants in the said application, have filed this revision petition.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the properties measuring 2 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.34/9 and 39 guntas in Sy.No.34/10, both situated at Junnasandra Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk were properties of one Smt.Pillakka - defendant No.2 in the original suit and respondent No.3 herein.
4. On 06.02.2003, there was a registered partition among the family members of Smt.Pillakka. The parties to the partition were respondent No.2, who is the husband of Smt.Pillakka, respondent No.3, who is Pillakka herself and respondent No.4, who is the son of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The properties in question by virtue of the said partition fell to the share of respondent No.4 B.N.Muni Reddy. On the same day, there was a further partition between respondent No.4 - B.N.Muni Reddy and his sons and the properties in question fell to the share of respondent No.7 - B.M.Naveen. Petitioner No.1 purchased the properties from respondent No.7 B.M.Naveen by way of a registered sale deed dated 22.11.2004. Thereafter, he gifted the properties in favour of petitioner No.2, who is his daughter, by way of a registered gift deed dated 02.09.2009.
5. Respondent No.1 herein filed O.S.No.7425/2011 contending that she is the daughter of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein and that the properties which are the subject matter of this revision petition along with several other properties are joint family properties. She along with respondent Nos.8, 9 and 10, who are also daughters of respondent Nos.1 and 2 also have a right over the said properties in addition to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 herein. In spite of it, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 behind the back of respondent Nos.1, 8, 9 and 10 entered into a registered partition deed on 06.02.2003 partitioning the properties among themselves excluding respondent Nos.1, 8, 9 and 10, which is illegal. She contends that she is entitled to 1/7th share in all the suit schedule properties including the properties which are the subject matter of this revision petition and sought for partition of the same and consequently sought for a declaration that the two partition deeds dated 06.02.2003 registered on 27.02.2003, the sale deed executed by respondent No.7 in favour of petitioner No.1 on 22.11.2004 and the gift deed dated 02.09.2009 executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2 in respect of the properties in question as null and void and not binding on her.
6. The petitioners herein who are defendant Nos.13 and 14 in the original suit have filed their written statement and also made an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought for rejection of the plaint in so far as defendant Nos.13 and 14 i.e., petitioners herein are concerned.
7. The contention of the petitioners is that the plaintiff i.e., respondent No.1 has claimed a right in the properties purchased by them on the ground that they are joint family properties and she has a right in the properties by virtue of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the amendment to Hindu Succession Act came into force on 09.09.2005, making a daughter an equal coparcener as that of a son. However, if any partition had taken place prior to the amendment as per Section 6(5) by way of a registered partition, then in that event, she cannot question what has been already partitioned. In the instant case, the registered partitions took place on 06.02.2003 which were duly registered on 27.02.2003, which is much earlier to amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act coming into force and the properties in questi
