IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
G. Suleman Sha Khadri Alliyas G. Suleman Sab S/o Mohamed Hussen Sab – Appellant
Versus
Nasim Unnisa W/o Mohammed Iqbal – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 390 of 2024
Decided On : 08-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and facts of the partition suit. (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments surrounding the suit's maintainability. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's reasoning on jurisdiction and applicable law. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. dismissal of the civil revision petition. (Para 18 , 19) |
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri. Goutham Chand, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7.
2. First defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S. No.332/2023.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1 Plaintiffs who are respondents No.1 to 6 in the revision petition filed a suit for partition in respect of the following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as 'suit properties' for short):
SCHEDULE "A"
1. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.30 totally measuring 3 acre 21 guntas, 2. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.30 measuring 5 acre, Both are totally measuring 8 acre 21 guntas, situated at Doopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk, both are bounded by
E: Lands of Survey no 34
W: Lands of Survey no 20
N: Lands of Survey no 29
S: Kengatte Road
3. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.23 totally measuring 3 acre 35 guntas, situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :-
E: Lands of Survey no 22
W: Lands of Survey no 14
N: Kere Ari.
S: Lands of Survey no-15.
4. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.20 measuring 2 acre 1 guntas, 5. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.20 measuring 5 acres, schedule 4 and 5 are situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk, both are bounded by :-
E: Lands of Survey no 30
W: Lands of Survey no 21
N: Lands of Survey no 26
S: Kere.
6. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.22 totally measuring 2 acre 6 guntas, situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :-
E: Lands of Survey no 21
W: Lands of Survey no 23
N: Kere Ari
S: Kengatte Road.
7. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No 107 totally measuring 1 acre 32 guntas, situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :-
E: Lands of Survey no 108
W: Kere
N: Lands of Survey no 113
S: Lands of Survey no 106.
8. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.26 totally measuring 1 acres, 9. The agricultural land bearing Sy. No.26 totally measuring 4 acre 37 guntas, schedule item no 8 and 9 are situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :-
E: Lands of Survey no 29
W: Kere
N: Government Land
S: Kere.
SCHEDULE "C"
1. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.165/2 totally measuring 1 acre 28 guntas, situated at Haliyur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :-
E: Remaining land in this survey no
W: Lands of Survey no 166
N: lands of Survey no 170
S: Lands of Survey no 164
2. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.312/2 totally measuring 1 acre 25 guntas, situated at Haliyur Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by:-
E: Lands of S C Shivanandappa
W: Property of Abdul Majeed Sab
N: Lands of Shivanandappa
S: Lands of Mohan Singh.
3. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.21 totally measuring 2 acre 20 guntas, situated at Doopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :-
E: Lands of Survey no 20
W: Lands of Survey no 22
N: Kere Ari
S: Kengatte Road.
3.2 Admittedly, parties are Mohammedans by community and plaint averments containing that suit properties are joint family properties cannot be countenanced in law inasmuch as, such a concept is alien to Mohammedan law.
3.3 Nevertheless, plaint averments would reveal that parents of the plaintiffs and first defendant were the owners of the suit property.
3.4 It is contented that there was a partition affected during the lifetime of the parents of the plaintiffs and first defendant, excluding the plaintiffs in the said partition and after death of the father o
The court affirmed that issues of partition governed by Mohammedan law must be adjudicated on merits rather than dismissed on procedural grounds.
The amended Hindu Succession Act entitles daughters to seek partition regardless of prior registered partitions, affirming their rights to joint family properties.
The Court upheld the dismissal of a plaint rejection application in a partition suit, affirming that substantial rights need adjudication, indicating that dismissals cannot be made on preliminary eva....
A granddaughter is entitled to seek partition of ancestral property, even during her father's lifetime, establishing daughters as coparceners under Hindu law.
Prior oral partitions must be supported by evidence during trial; dismissing the application without trial is justified when material facts aren't suppressed.
The main legal point established is that a suit can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if it is time-barred, lacks a cause of action, or seeks to reopen a valid previous partition.
The court affirmed that a second suit for partition is maintainable despite prior dismissal, recognizing differing rights under the Hindu Succession Act.
Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 requires a full trial where factual disputes exist; limitation issues are mixed questions of law and fact.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.