Prior oral partitions must be supported by evidence during trial; dismissing the application without trial is justified when material facts aren't suppressed.

ORDER :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri.B.Manjunath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Sahnmugam Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

2. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) in O.S.No.1303/2022.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

3.1. A suit in O.S.No.1303/2022 came to be filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1 with the following relief in respect of following immovable properties:

PRAYER

Wherefore, the plaintiff above named humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants in the following terms:

a. To partition the suit schedule item No.1 to 3 properties by metes and bounds and allot plaintiffs 1/3^rd share and put the plaintiff into his independent peaceful physical possession over the suit schedule item Nos.1 to 3 properties;

b. To issue permanent injunction against the defendant Nos.2 to 4, their legal heirs, attornees, representative, contractors, coolies, labourers or any other person/s claiming right or authority under them and restraining the defendants No.2 to 4 from alienating or creating any third party rights over the suit schedule item No.1 to 3 properties in any manner.

c. To declare that the gift deed executed by Sri.Hanumaiah in favour of defendant No.3 and 4 in respect of item No.2 and the said gift deed was allegedly registered as document No.YAN- 1-10756/2018-19 in Book-I, stored in CD No.YAND704, registered on 20.02.2019 in the office of the jurisdictional Senior Sub Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on the plaintiff in any manner.

d. To award the costs of the proceedings,

e. To pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the fact and circumstances of the case.

SCHEDULE PROEPRTIES

ITEM No.1: all that piece and parcel of the property bearing Khaneshumari No.31, measuring East to West: 48 feet, North to South: 70 feet, totally measuring 3360 Sq. Feet, situated at Gantiganahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru and bounded on:

East by: Approach road West by: Remaining portion of land belonging to Sri.Ramaiah North by: Road South by: Remaining portion of land belonging to Sri.Ramaiah Item No.2: All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Khaneshumari No.31, totally measuring 508.15 Sq. Meters, situated at Gantiganahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru and bounded on:

East by: Road

West by: Property of H. Ramaiah

North by: road

South by: Property of Venkataramanappa Item No.2: All that piece and parcel of the property bearing site Gramapanchayath Khatha No.30/30, vacant site No.30, measuring East to West 40 feet, North to South 60 feet, totally measuring 2400 Sq. Feet, situated at Gantiganahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru and bounded on:

East by: Road and property of H.G.Sunil Kumar and H.G.Anil Kumar

West by: Government Property

North by: Property of H. Ramaiah

South by: Property of Venkataramanappa

3.2. Plaintiff contended that during the lifetime of father of the plaintiff Munithimmaiah, there was a partition between Munithimmaiah, Hanumaiah, plaintiff and Shankarappa.

3.3. But in the said oral partition, only agricultural lands were divided and in respect of the house property, there was no division. After the death of father of the plaintiff, there was a demand for share in the suit properties but defendants failed to comply the demand made which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit.

3.4. Cause o