Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.Krishna Kumar
Shanthamma, W/O. Late Sri A. Appanna – Appellant
Versus
A Mune Gowda, S/O.Late P. Anjanappa – Respondent
ORDER :
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.
In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:
"a) set aside the impugned Order passed by the Hon'ble Court of XVI additional City Civil and Sessions Judge CCH- 12, Bengaluru City, on L.A. No. VII in O.S. No. 6753/2022 dated 13-10-2025 vide ANNEXURE-A,
b) to pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble deems fit in the circumstance of the Petitioners case and
c) to call for records in O.S.No.6753/2022 on the file of the XVI addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge CCH-12, Bengaluru City."
2. This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6753/2022 on the file of the learned XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-12) at Bengaluru, is directed against the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, passed on I.A.No.VII, whereby the said application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XIV Rule 5 to strike off issue No. 4, was rejected by the Trial Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and perused the material on record.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents/defendants seeking part
The court determined that a specific prayer for cancellation in a suit justifies the removal of maintainability issues incorrectly framed by the Trial Court.
The court upheld the trial court's discretion to allow a suit for partition to proceed, emphasizing the need for full trial to address claims of misrepresentation and the nature of property documenta....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC should be allowed if substantially required for the ends of justice, and the limited scope of ....
Respondents 1 to 4 are not at all entitled for partition and they are not also in joint and constructive possession of suit property. Court fee paid on the plaint is not correct and respondents 1 to ....
The amended Hindu Succession Act entitles daughters to seek partition regardless of prior registered partitions, affirming their rights to joint family properties.
A plaint cannot be rejected based solely on a defendant's application when disputed facts exist; the cause of action must be assessed based on the plaint and its documents.
The court affirmed the maintainability of a partition suit despite existing decrees, emphasizing that prior status quo orders should not have been disturbed and clarified the principles of the doctri....
The court's decision emphasized that the points raised did not meet the criteria for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.
Rule 73 of Rules reads as duties of Registering Officer.
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
