IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2313 OF 2019 (PAR-)

BETWEEN:

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA, AND D/O LATE DODDASONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BHATTARAMARENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 135.

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K AND:

Location: High Court of Karnataka

1. SRI. KEMPANNA S/O LATE DODDASONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 102.

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

2. SRI. SUBASH CHANDRA S/O LATE DODDASONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHEEMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 135.

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

3. SRI. DODDAPPAIAH S/O LATE DODDASONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHEEMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 135.

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. SHRINIVAS M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

R3 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W.ORDER 41 RULE

1 OF THE CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.5 IN OS NO.734/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., DEVANAHALLI ALLOWING THE IA NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a)

R/W.SEC.151 OF CPC. FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

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 2^nd defendant herein. The second wife by name Kempamma died leaving behind only son Doddapapaiah, the 3^rd 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 1/4^th share in the suit schedule properties.

6. Summons were issued to the defendants, accordingly, defendants appeared. The 1^st 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 So