Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
J.C. Dhanamani W/o Late Dr. L. Shivalingaiah – Appellant
Versus
Raviprakash S/o Late Dr. L. Shivalingaiah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 25) |
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri.B.M.Mala Swamy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.R.B.Sadasivappa, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Present revision petition is filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.5319/2023, challenging the dismissal of the application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) in O.S.No.5319/2023 dated 14.03.2024.
3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs who are respondent Nos.1 to 4 with the following relief in respect of following properties (hereinafter referred to suit properties):
PRAYER
“Therefore, under the circumstances, the plaintiffs above named pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree;
1. For partition and separate possession in the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs and to the 4th defendant as per the ratio more fully mentioned in the registered "WILL CUM TRUST DECLARATION" deed dated 23/03/1985 executed by late Smt. Siddamma, i.e.. grandmother of t
Mixed questions of law and fact require complete trial consideration rather than immediate rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
Properties held in trust cannot be claimed as personal property of a trustee; relevant decrees regarding management are binding on all parties.
The court emphasized that the present suit does not hit Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and there is a cause of action to file the present suit.
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 ....
Trust properties cannot be alienated by a trustee without specific authority, and mere revenue entries do not confer ownership rights against trust interests.
The court reaffirmed that a plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 based solely on the defendant's contentions; it must be based on the plaintiff's allegations and the merits of the case ....
A plaintiff's failure to seek explicit title declaration does not render the suit unmaintainable if sufficient evidence of ownership exists, especially when the trial is ongoing.
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....
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
