Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 7514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. NATARAJAN, J
SMT. JAYAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA, AND D/O LATE DODDASONNAPPA – Appellant
Versus
SRI. KEMPANNA S/O LATE DODDASONNAPPA – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2313 OF 2019 (PAR-)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SHRINIVAS M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE
The rejection of a plaint based solely on defendants' assertions without adjudicating factual disputes is erroneous, necessitating remand for proper trial.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 and Order 7 Rule 11(a) - Rejection of plaint - Appellant challenged the Trial Court's order rejecting her plaint based on the defendants' application - The court held that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint without adjudicating the factual issues raised by the appellant. (Paras 5, 10, 11)
(B) Ancestral Property - Joint Family - The court emphasized that the properties in question are joint family properties governed by the Mithakshara School of Hindu Law, and the prior partition decreed in a previous suit was not adequately referenced in the current plaint. (Paras 5, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed a share in the ancestral property after the death of her father, asserting that the defendants colluded to change ownership without her consent. The Trial Court rejected her plaint based on the defendants' claims of prior partition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Trial Court should have framed necessary issues instead of rejecting the plaint outright based on the defendants' assertions.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court justified the rejection of the plaint based on the defendants' averments without proper adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Trial Court's reliance on the defendants' claims without addressing the factual disputes was erroneous, necessitating a remand for proper adjudication.
Result: Appeal allowed; the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint is set aside, and the case is remitted for further proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties involved and property ownership details. (Para 1 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding the validity of the plaint. (Para 2 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of the trial court's decision. (Para 3 , 4 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. final judgment and order for retrial. (Para 7) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of CPC ., for setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.734/2015 dated 04.11.2019, for having rejecting the plaint of the appellant on the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC .
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent.
3. The parties before the Trial Court are, the appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the Trial Court.
4. The ranks of the parties is retained as before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
5. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that, the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 said to be children of one Doddasonnappa, they are having ancestral property. The father Doddasonnappa died intestate, leaving behind his two wives namely, first wife Narayanamma died leaving behind her children namely, S.K.Kempanna, the first defendant herein, Jayamma, the plaintiff herein, and Subashchandra the 2nd defendant herein. The second wife by name Kempamma died leaving behind only son Doddapapaiah, the 3rd defendant herein to succeed his estate and they are all members of undivided joint family members governed by Mithakshara School of Hindu Law. They also produced the genealogical tree. It is submitted that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. The plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. She came to know that the defendants by colluding with each other without showing the name of the plaintiff got changed the khatha into their names vide MR.No.4/2001-02, M.R.No.1/2001-02 and M.T.No.01/2001-02. The defendants also filed the suit for partition O.S.No.2105/2006 and it was decreed on 28.06.2011, in that suit also defendants not made the plaintiff as party and obtained the decree and the same is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, prayed for grating 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties.
6. Summons were issued to the defendants, accordingly, defendants appeared. The 1st defendant appeared and filed IA.No.5 under Order VII Rule 11(a) for rejection of plaint. It is contended by the defendant that originally the property belongs to one Mayanna, who said to be having two children namely Channappa and Munichannappa. The Channappa having three sons namely Dodda Sonnappa, late Mayanna and Gudiyappa. The Munichannappa having two sons namely Chikkasonnappa and Narayanappa. The said Narayanappa filed the suit in OS.No.473/1996 for partition, the same was compromised on 30.09.1997, a decree was passed and partition was registered between them. Subsequently, share fallen to the family members of the first defendant and his brothers 'A' schedule property in OS.No.473/1996 , has been jointly enjoyed by the brothers of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the first defendant filed a suit against his brothers and mother(2nd wife of his father) in OS.No.2105/2006 , and suit was decreed, the same was upheld by the first appellate court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. After dismissal of the appeal, the second defendant filed the suit, they suppressed the partition held in the year 1997 itself. Therefore, once partition was held by way of court decree, the plaintiff being a daughter is not entitle for any share or cannot be considered as co-parcener, subsequent to 25.12.2004, as the partition already effected in the family members. Therefore, the plaint itself is liable to be rejected. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal.
7. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments, allowed the interlocutory application filed by the respondent/ defendant and rejected the plaint.
