The court upheld the absolute ownership of self-acquired property by a female heir under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, confirming the trial court's deletion of said property from the plaint.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ like nature to set aside the order on I.A.No.2 dated 26.11.2025 passed in O.S.No.516/2025 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli which is at Annexure-A and dismiss the I.A.No.2 filed by the Respondents under order VI Rule 16 of CPC.

b) Grant such other relief/s that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner/plaintiff is none other than the daughter of respondent No.1-Smt. Sarasakumari @ Sarasamma, who is also the mother of respondent No.2-B.M.Chaya and respondent No.3-B.M.Hemanthkumar. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute and the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents/defendants for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties comprising of 7 items of immovable properties. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 filed a written statement contesting the suit and also putting forth a counter claim specifically contending that she has no objection to effect partition in respect of item Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 of the suit schedule properties, but the suit in respect of item No.5 of the suit schedule properties was liable to be dismissed since the same was the separate self-acquired and stridhan property of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and during her lifetime, respondent No.1 had gifted the said property in favour of respondent No.3.

4. During the pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 16 of the CPC., inter alia contending that since item No.5 of the suit schedule properties was a separate self acquired and stridhan property of respondent No.1, who had gifted the same in favour of respondent No.3, the said item was liable to be deleted from the array of suit schedule properties. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under:

"ORDER ON I.A.No. II

The I.A.No.2 is filed by the defendant No.1 and 3 under Order VI Rule 16 of C.P.C. praying to delete the item No.5 (Strike out the item No.5) as it is self- acquired property of the defendant No.1 as per the plaint averments only and such other reliefs.

2. It is alleged in the affidavit, that the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the item No.5 of the suit property. She gifted the same to the defendant No.3 in the above case. Nor the plaintiff neither the defendant No.2 have share in the said property. The plaintiff has filed the present suit including the said property with a malafide intention. Hence, it is prayed to delete the item No.5 from the suit properties.

3. On the other hand, the plaintiff has contended in her objection that the application is not maintainable. The item No.5 is the joint and ancestral of the property the plaintiff and the defendants. The said property cannot be deleted from the suit items. The Gift Deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiff’s share and the same is void. Hence, it is prayed to reject the application and proceed with matter