The court upheld the dismissal of the application for rejection of the plaint by emphasizing that the rights of a daughter to ancestral property are recognized under both the Hindu Succession Act and Karnataka Amendment.

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hegde S. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.

2. Present Revision Petition is filed by the defendant No.2 challenging the order of dismissal of application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure by considered Order dated 10.02.2025 passed in O.S No.70/2016 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar.

3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

A suit came to be filed by the first respondent in O.S No.70/2016 with the following prayer:

“WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass Judgment and Decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants;

a) To direct the defendant to effect the partition of ½ share to the plaintiff and direct the defendants to deliver the exclusive share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds.

b) To allow court costs.

c) To allow any other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

SCHEDULE

All piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.16, totally measuring 6-00 acres out of which 1 acre 20 guntas, situated at Sujjanahalli village, Vemgal hobli, Kolar taluk bounded on East by: Bettahosapura gadi, West by government road, North by: remaining land in same Sy.No.16, South by: remaining land in same Sy.No.16.

4. Plaintiff contended that first defendant H.Venkatappa is her father. Hanumanthappa, the grandfather of the plaintiff had four sons namely H. Venkatappa who is the first defendant, Munishamappa who is no more, Ramaiah and Narayanappa.

5. Hanumanthappa and his four sons namely Venkatappa, Munishamappa, Ramaiah and Narayanappa constituted a Hindu Joint Family. Venkatappa was the head of the family and was looking after the affairs of the joint family.

6. Hanumanthappa possessed ancestral property and out of the income derived from the ancestral properties, land in Sy.No.16 measuring 6 acres situated at Sujjanahally, Vemgal Hobli, Kolar Taluk, was acquired by the joint family, but in the name of H. Venkatappa.

7. Plaintiff further contended that first defendant- Venkatappa and his three brothers divided the suit land bearing No.16 into four shares through ‘Panchayathi Vibhaga Pathra’. First defendant was allotted 1 acre 20 guntas as his share. But, katha of the property was not mutated in the individual names as per the partition.

8. It is further contended by the plaintiff that first defendant and plaintiff were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property as members of the Joint family insofar as H.Venkatappa’s Branch is concerned and was growing Neelgiri trees in the suit property.

9. It is also contented that trees were cut and removed by first defendant many times. Plaintiff being the co-sharer to the suit property, is entitled for her share in the suit property.

10. Having lost her husband, plaintiff is now residing in Manjali Village, Vemgal Hobli, Kolar Taluk, and defendant no. 1 is aged 101 years at the time of the filing of the suit.

11. Defendant No.1-H.Venkatappa obtained monetary help for his hospital expenses from plaintiff time and again. It is further contended by the plaintiff that to the utter surprise and dismay, plaintiff came to know that first defendant in collusion with second defendant, sold the suit property by sale deed dated 26.12.2003 without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff.

12. She further contended that assuming for a moment that sale deed is valid, Venkatappa could only bind his share i