A full trial is necessary to determine the nature of property in partition disputes; striking out pleadings requires strict adherence to CPC provisions ensuring fairness.

ORDER :

Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.

W.P.No.30403/2018 is filed challenging the order dated 27.02.2018 passed on I.A.No.7 filed by the respondent No.1- plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , in O.S.No.91/2012 and W.P.No.39514/2018 is filed challenging the order dated 08.08.2018 passed on I.A.No.9 filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendant Nos.11 and 12 under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the CPC, in O.S.No.91/2012 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Arasikere.

2. Both the writ petitions arise out of the same suit between the same parties. With their consent, they are heard together and common order is passed.

3. Heard.

4. Smt.Sona Vakkund, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.39514/2018 submits that the defendant Nos.11 and 12 filed an application to strike out a pleading pertaining to the northern half portion of item No.20 of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court allowed the said application by coming to the conclusion that the northern portion of item No.20 of the suit schedule properties is a self- acquired property without a complete trial on all issues as the case of the plaintiff is that all the properties are the joint family properties.

5. It is submitted that the application for striking out the pleading can be allowed only if the circumstances referred in Rule 16 of Order VI of the CPC are present. The striking out of pleading can be allowed if it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, prejudice to the other side, embrace, delay the trial or abuse of process of law. In the case on hand, none of the ingredients of Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC are found in the application filed by the defendant Nos.11 and 12. However, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no right to add the property which is in no way relating to the joint family and allowed the application. It is further submitted that the very same Trial Court allowed the impleading application filed by the plaintiff to implead defendant Nos.10 to 12 in the suit by recording a finding that the acquisition of property by the said defendants is either self-acquired property or joint family property can be decided after a full-fledged trial. Now, the very same Court recorded contrary finding and allowed the application for striking of the pleading. Hence, she seeks to allow the writ petition by the plaintiff and dismiss the writ petition filed by the proposed defendants.

6. Per contra, Sri.Sadashivaiah K.G., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.39514/2018 and the petitioner in W.P.No.30403/2018 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court on I.A.No.9 filed under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the CPC. It is submitted that the defendant No.3 along with Smt.Hulagamma jointly purchased item No.20 of the suit schedule properties under the registered sale deed dated 09.02.1987 and thereafter, the said property was sold by the defendant No.3 and defendant No.11 to the husband of defendant No.3 namely Rangegowda and to the defendant No.12 who is the wife of defendant No.11. It is further submitted that Smt.Hulagamma is a stranger to the family and the subject property is not a joint family property. It is also submitted that without any justifiable reason, item No.20 of the suit schedule properties which is a self-acquired property of the defendant No.3 and Smt.Hulagamma has been included in the plaint and the said Smt.Hulagamma and her daughter Venkatalakshmamma are not parties to the suit. The Trial Court, considering the material on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the northern portion of the item No.20 of the