SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1885

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V Srishananda, J.
Sanjeeva Kumar Since Dead By Lrs - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Mamathashree P W/O Krishnamurthy - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 20 of 2024 (IO)
Decided On : 15-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Sathisha D J, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. A Madhusudhana Rao, Advocate

A granddaughter is entitled to seek partition of ancestral property, even during her father's lifetime, establishing daughters as coparceners under Hindu law.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order VII Rule 11(a) - This Civil Revision Petition challenges the dismissal of an application seeking rejection of the plaint for want of cause of action regarding partition of ancestral properties - The court held that the suit is maintainable and the plaintiff has sufficient grounds for seeking her share. (Paras 4, 12-15)

(B) Property Law - Ancillary Right of Partition - The court emphasized that a granddaughter has the right to seek partition of ancestral property, even during her father's lifetime, recognizing daughters as coparceners. (Paras 14, 8)

(C) Cause of Action - The court reiterated that a suit for partition is maintainable if sufficient material facts are presented in the plaint, establishing a cause of action. (Paras 9-10)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed suit O.S.No. 247/2019 for partitioning ancestral agricultural properties, claiming her 1/3rd share from a 1/4th share of the second defendant, after the death of their common ancestor. The defendants opposed the suit claiming a previous partition and denial of the plaintiff's rights. (Paras 3(i), 3(iii), 3(v))

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court correctly dismissed the application to reject the plaint, as there was sufficient cause of action for partition based on ancestral properties. The trial court's reasoning that no evidence was produced by defendants to claim self-acquired properties was upheld. (Paras 12-15)

Issues: The main issues addressed were the maintainability of the suit for partition during the father's lifetime and the sufficiency of cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the dismissal of the plaint was correct as the plaintiff is a coparcener and entitled to seek partition, thus affirming that daughters can claim rights to ancestral property irrespective of their father's status.

Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

ORDER :

V Srishananda, J.

Heard Sri Satisha D.J., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. The Present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 in O.S No.247/2019, challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition, are as under:

3(i) First respondent – plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No. 247/2019 for the following reliefs, in respect of following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as “suit properties”):-

"WHEREFORE, the plaintiff above named prays most respectfully that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to pass the judgment and decree against the defendants as follows:-

a) For Judgment and decree in favour of plaintiff, partitioning the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds by allotting the plaintiff legitimate 1/3rd share out of 1/4th share of 2nd defendant over the suit schedule properties.

b) To send the preliminary decree to the Tahasildar, Magadi Taluk, Magadi and to appoint as court commissioner so as to demarcate the suit schedule properties and put them in separate possession as required under section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [sic]

c) For cost of the suit and such other relief's as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

1. All that piece and parcel of the agricultural property bearing Sy.No.17/6 measuring to an extent 2.16.00.00 (Two Acres and Sixteen) Guntas, situated at Haluru Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, bonded towards:-

DirectionProperty
EastProperty of Narasimhaiah
WestProperty of Narasimhaiah
NorthProperty of Hanumanthaiah
SouthProperty of Doddegowda

2. All that piece and parcel of the agricultural property bearing old Sy.No.18 New Sy.No.18/1 measuring to an extent 5.39.00.00 (Five Acres and Thirty Nine) Guntas, situated at Haluru Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, bonded towards:-

DirectionBoundary
EastKere Angala
WestNelamangala Boundary
NorthProperty of Marigangaiah
SouthProperty of Hanumanthaiah

3. All that piece and parcel of the agricultural property bearing Sy.No.20/2 measuring to an extent 4.16.00.00 (Four Acres and Sixteen) Guntas, situated at Haluru Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, bonded towards:-

DirectionProperty
EastProperty of Narasimhaiah
WestProperty of Marigangaiah
NorthProperty of Doddegowda
SouthHouse of Marigangaiah

4. All that piece and parcel of the agricultural property bearing Sy.No.31/1 measuring to an extent 0.14.00.00 (Fourteen) Guntas situated at Haluru Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, bonded towards:-

DirectionDescription
EastProperty of Marigangaiah
WestTank Bund
NorthTank bund
SouthProperty of Ramakrishnaiah

5. All that piece and parcel of and the agricultural property bearing Sy.No.22/1 measuring to an extent 0.15.00.00 (Fifteen) Guntas, situated at Haluru Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, bonded towards:-

DirectionProperty
EastProperty of Ramaiah
WestProperty of Doddegowda
NorthProperty of Doddegowda
SouthKere Angala

3(ii) To substantiate her right to seek partition, necessary averments made in the plaint are in paragraph Nos.5 to 7, which are culled out hereunder for ready reference.

"5) The plaintiff submits that the said originator of the Hindu undivided joint family viz., Hanumanthaiah s/o Sanjeevaiah died intestate on 26/05/2011 and after his demise the suit schedule properties are devolved upon by the plaintiff and the defendants by way of inheritance. The plaintiff and the defendants being the legal heirs of said deceased Hanumanthaiah have inherited the suit schedule properties by way of inheritance and hence the same are the ancestral and joint family properties of the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top