Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
Venkataramana Setty, S/o. Chikkannashetti – Appellant
Versus
Parvathamma, D/o. Late Muni Sanjeevappa – Respondent
ORDER :
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri Suhas H.S. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chowdappa B. learned counsel for the respondents.
The seventh defendant in O.S.No.1010/2022 is the revision petitioner assailing the correctness of the order passed in said suit dated 01.09.2023 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura, in rejecting the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC.
2. Facts in a nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as under:
Smt. Parvathamma and others filed suit with the following prayer in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as suit properties):
"Wherefore the Plaintiffs are most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may Kindly be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by granting the following relief's:-
a. Grant for partition and separate possession of 1/6th each share to the plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 5 and 1/6th (One Sixth) joint share to the plaintiffs No.3 and 4 and 1/6h joint share to the plaintiffs No.6 to 8 in the suit schedule properties.
b. To declare that the Sale Deeds and Gift Deed h
The dismissal of the application for rejection of the plaint was justified, as the determination of property rights requires substantive evidence rather than unsupported assertions by the defendant.
Prior oral partitions must be supported by evidence during trial; dismissing the application without trial is justified when material facts aren't suppressed.
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....
The court reiterated that issues of title and right to convey property require full trial, rejecting premature dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
A granddaughter is entitled to seek partition of ancestral property, even during her father's lifetime, establishing daughters as coparceners under Hindu law.
The court held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot justify rejection of a plaint at the threshold without trial.
The amended Hindu Succession Act entitles daughters to seek partition regardless of prior registered partitions, affirming their rights to joint family properties.
A previous oral partition that is not acted upon does not bar a party from seeking a partition of ancestral properties; comprehensive resolution requires a full trial.
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
