SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 70819

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V SRISHANANDA
SRI. PUTTAMALLANAYAKA – Appellant
Versus
SRI. KRISHNA. N. – Respondent
CRP 475/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 475 OF 2023 (IO)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. PUTTAMALLANAYAKA,

S/O MALLANAYAKA

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

R/AT BILLIKERE VILLAGE AND POST,

HUNSUR TALUK,

MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 103

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. KRISHNA. N.

S/O LATE NARAYANA AND SMT. SAROJAMMA Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

by

SHARADAVANI

B

2. SRI. MUTHA N.

Location: High

Court of S/O LATE NARAYANA AND SMT. SAROJAMMA

Karnataka

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

BOTH ARE R/AT BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE,

BELAWADI POST, YELAWALA HOBLI,

MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 130

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VYSHAAK, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. BHARGAVA D. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1

R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2023 PASSED ON I.A NO.3 IN OS.NO.294/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Smt. Lakshmidevi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Vaishak, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Third defendant in O.S. No.294/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

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

3.1 A suit for partition came to be filed by the first respondent against the revision petitioner and two others in respect of following property (hereinafter referred to the 'suit property').

SCHEDULE Site property bearing No.1145, measuring to an extent of East to West 9.00 meters and North tot South 12.00 meters, situated at 2nd phase, 4th stage, Vijayanagar, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysuru, bounded on the :

East by : Site property bearing No.1136 West by : Site property bearing No.1134 North by : Road South by : Site Property bearing No.1144.

3.2 It is the contention of the plaintiff that Sri.

Narayana was allotted the suit property by Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysuru under the Land loser quota. Therefore it is the joint family property of Sri. Narayana and his son Venkatesha, who is no more, who left behind first defendant Smt. Sarojamma, second defendant Mutha N. and plaintiff Krishna.

3.3 It is further contented that clandestinely, the suit property was sold by Narayana to third defendant (revision petitioner) by way of registered sale deed and the said sale did not bind the shares of the plaintiff and Defendants No.1 and 2 and sought for decree of partition.

3.4 Pursuant to the suit summons, third defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff.

3.5 Third defendant also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint as Narayana during his lifetime has sold the property to the third defendant by way of registered said deed and therefore, the suit is per se not maintainable.

3.6 The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing detailed written objections.

3.7 Learned trial Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the application filed by the third defendant by way of impugned order.

4. Validity of the said order is called in question in this revision petition on following grounds:

(cid:1) The Order impugned passed by the Trial Court is opposed to law, facts and materials on record.

(cid:1) The Trall Court has falled to exercise Its jurisdiction vested under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(cid:1) The Trial Court has acted in material irregularity while rejecting the application for rejection of Plaint, resulting miscarriage of justice.

(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top