ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Smt.Swathi Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Prasanna B. R., learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Plaintiffs are the appellants challenging the validity of the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere in O.S.No.92/2022 dated 23.07.2024. 3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

3.1. Plaintiffs claiming to be the sisters of defendant No.1 have filed a suit for partition on the ground that by virtue of amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, they are also having right in respect of the suit property and sought for decreeing the suit.

3.2. Defendant No.1 who is the brother of plaintiffs, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that there is already a registered partition deed between male members of the joint family which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar on 23.03.1990.

3.3. It is also contended that in view of explanation of Section 6 (1)(c) of Hindu Succession Act, the suit is not maintainable as there was already a registered partition deed.

3.4. The said application was opposed by plaintiffs by filing necessary written objections by contending that defendant No.2 is not a party to the said partition deed dated 23.03.1990 and all the properties of the joint family were not included in the said partition deed. Therefore, alleged partition deed did not have the effect of severance of the joint family status and suit properties continued as joint family properties. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the application.

4. Learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and took into consideration the relevant aspects of the matter especially the registered document, wherein there was a partition among the members of the joint family which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar in the year 1990.

5. It is also pertinent to note that subsequent to that said partition deed, there were several transactions that have taken place in respect of the properties which were the subject matter of the said partition deed. Therefore, learned Trial Judge has taken into consideration the principles of law enunciated in the case of Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court have held that the scope and ambit of application under Order VII Rule 11 is to scrutinize the plaint averments alone and also taken into consideration the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in CRP No.307/2020 in the case of Mrs.Metropoli Overseas Limited and Sri.J.S.Deekshit and others and principles of law enunciated in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717, recorded a categorical finding that since there was a registered previous partition, in view of explanation to Section 6(1)(c) of Hindu Succession Act, suit is not maintainable and rejected the plaint.

6. Validity of the said order is called in question in this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterates that defendant No.2 was not a party to the suit so also party to the said partition so also the plaintiffs and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration.

8. Admittedly, plaintiffs have to plead their case and not on behalf of defendant No.2. Further, in the entire plaint, there is no mention as to the registered partition deed. Therefore, there is a clear suppression of material facts.

9. Registered partition deed is of the year 1990 and same is acted upon by the parties. If at all, if anybody is aggrieved with the said registered partition deed, the suit should have been filed three years from the date of registration of registered partition deed. Since, the plaintiffs have not chosen to do so nor defendant No.2, rejection of the plaint by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order is thus just and proper and requires no interference.

10. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

i. Admission declined.

ii. Appeal is dismiss