Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 225 OF 2021 (EX)
BETWEEN:
SRI NARASIMHAIAH SON OF SRI KADARAIAH AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT KETHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT- 562109 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B V KRISHNAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE GAALINARASAMMA AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT KAGGALIPURA COLONY KAGGALIPURA POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, Digitally signed by BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA
2. SMT LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH D/O LATE GAALINARSAMMA COURT OF KARNATAKA AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS
3. SRI K R NAGESH S/O SMT LAKSHMAMMA AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS 4. SRI K R ROOPESH S/O SMT LAKSHMAMMA AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT KETHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562109
5. SRI MAARAPPA S/O LATE GAALINARASAMMA AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS 6. SMT KADARAMMA D/O LATE GAALINARASAMMA AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS 7. SMT RATHNAMMA D/O LATE GAALINARASAMMA AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT BILLAKEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT
8. SRI. HUCCHAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LR’S SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS RESPONDENTS 5, 6 AND 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF KETHOHALLI VILLAGE CHUNCHANAKUPPE POST TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
9. SRI. KADARAIAH S/O DODDAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, 10. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O SRI KADARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 11. SRI RUDRAIAH S/O SRI KADARAIAH, , AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 12. SMT. SUNITHA D/O SRI RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 13. SMT. SUNANDA, D/O SRI RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 14. SMT.RAJINI, D/O SRI RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 15. SMT. RADHA, D/O SRI RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 16. SRI. AJAY, S/O SRI RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, 17. SRI GALAHANUMAIAH @ CHITTE GALA, S/O SRI KADARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
18. MISS. RAMYA, D/O SRI GALAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 19. SRI.VIJAY S/O SRI GALAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 20. MASTER ABHISHEK N, S/O SRI NARASIMHAIAH, AGED BOUT 13 YEARS, 21. MISS VINUTHA N, D/O SRI NARASIMHAIAH, AGED BOUT 11 YEARS, BOTH MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER
22. SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA D/O SRI. KADARIAH, AGED BOUT 33 YEARS, 23. SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA, D/O SRI. KADARIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 23 ARE RESIDING AT KETHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DIST.
24. SRI. B G LOHITH, S/O SRI B H GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT, BIDADI MAIN ROAD, BIDADI TOWN AND HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT, 25. SRI GALAHANUMAIAH, S/O LATE GALINARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT, KETHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT, 26. SMT. MUNIKEMPAMMA, W/O LATE GALINARASAIAH, REPORTED TO BE DEAD, 27. SMT. JAYAMMA, S/O LATE GALINARASIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT, BYYALU VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, 28. SMT. RATHNAMMA, D/O LTE GALINARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT, AVARAGERE VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.56/2019 FROM THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAMANAGARA AND ETC.
THIS CRP, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Call for the entire records in O.S.No.56/2019 from the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramanagara.
b. Examine the legality, correctness and propriety and genuineness in passing the order on I.A.No.VI filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of CPC dated
19.11.2020.
c. Set aside the order passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramanagara in O.S.No.56/2019 and dismiss the suit of the respondents as same is hit by principles of Res- Judicata and pass such other relief/s as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. A suit in O.S. No.56/2019 had been filed by the respondents. In the said suit, the petitioner who was the defendant had filed an application under Section of Code of Civil Procedure seeking for dismissal of the suit on the ground that in an earlier suit which had been filed, the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC had bee allowed and the plaint was rejected, as such, the same would apply as resjudicata and the present suit also to be dismissed under Section 11 of CPC by applying principles of rejudicata.
3. The earlier suit had been rejected under Order 11 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the coparcenar, i.e. mother of the plaintiff was not alive as on the date on which the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act had come into force. The present application under Section 11 came to be rejected on the ground that post the said order the change in law inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma -v- Rakesh Sharma and others1 has held that it is not required for the coparcener and the plaintiff to be alive as on the date of amendment, even if not alive as on 9.04.2005, the suit would be maintainable.
4. I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the said order. The suit for partition could be filed at any point of time and is a continuous cause of action. There being change in law, Section 11 of CPC would not be applicable, as such, the above petition stands dismissed.
5. All issues are left open to be decided by the trial Court.
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
