This petition is directed against the common

impugned

order

dated

14.12.2022

passed

in

O.S.No.1013/2010 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Bengaluru

Rural

District,

Bengaluru,

whereby

the

application – I.A. No.7 filed by the petitioner-defendant

No.7 under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint was

rejected by the Trial Court and I.A. No.8 filed by the

plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of

the plaint was rejected by the Trial Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 and

perused the material on record.

The

material

on

record

discloses

that

respondents No.1 to 5-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid

suit against the petitioner-defendant No.7 and other

defendants for partition and separate possession of their

- 5 -

alleged share in the suit schedule immoveable property. In

the said suit, the petitioner, who was arrayed as defendant

No.7, not only filed his written statement contesting the

suit but also filed the instant application I.A. No.7 under

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.

Subsequent to I.A.No.7 being filed by the petitioner-

defendant No.7, respondents No.1 to 5-plaintiffs filed an

application – I.A. No.8 seeking amendment of the plaint.

Both the application having been contested by opposite

parties, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned

order whereby I.A. No.7 filed by the petitioner was

rejected and I.A.No.8 filed by respondents No.1 to 5-

plaintiffs was allowed. Aggrieved by the impugned order

rejecting I.A. No.7, the petitioner is before this Court by

way of the present petition.

In addition to reiterating various contentions

urged in the petition and referring to the material on

record, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my

attention to the plaint averments in order to contend that

- 6 -

the plaintiffs are, undisputedly, daughters of one late

Pullanna, who had sold the suit schedule property in

favour of defendant No.5 on 09.08.1982 itself prior to

coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 with

effect from 09.09.2005 and consequently, in the light of

the specific contention that the respondents No.1 to 5-

plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was a joint family

property which had been alienated by way of a registered

sale deed on 09.08.1982 prior to coming into force of the

Hindu Succession Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’), the

plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the suit

schedule property in view of the proviso to Section 6 of

the Act. Secondly, it is contended that during his life time

itself, the aforesaid Pullanna, and his sons, the defendants

No.1 o 4 in the present suit, were involved in a litigation

against the purchaser Krishna Reddy (defendant No.5 in

the present suit) which culminated in favour of the said

Krishna Reddy against Pullanna and his sons vide

judgment and decree dated 28.07.1998 passed by this

Court in R.S.A. No.2/1995 which has attained finality and

- 7 -

become conclusive and binding upon Pullanna and all his

children including the plaintiffs herein and consequently,

the plaintiffs did not have any manner of right, title or

interest or possession over the suit schedule property

which disentitled them from putting forth any cause of

action in the present suit. Thirdly, it is contended that

subsequently, the defendants No.1 to 4 were involved in

one more litigation in O.S.No.2099/2005 against Krishna

Reddy which was also compromise vide compromise

decree dated 05.03.2009 as a result of which the right,

title, interest and possession of Krishna Reddy over the

suit schedule property was confirmed and affirmed. It is,

therefore, contended that apart from the fact that the

plaintiffs were guilty of suppression of material facts

having not disclosed the earlier litigations between their

father, Pullanna, and their brothers defendants No.1 to 4

herein with Krishna Reddy, which