IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 361 OF 2025 (PAR/DEC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI MOHAMMED SHOIAB ULLA .N S/O LATE M. V. MOHAMMED NOORULLA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO. 25, 2^ND MAIN ROAD AMBEDKAR LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR BENGALURU-560 032.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. TANVEER AHMED SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. NASREEN SULTANA W/O LATE M.V. MOHAMMED NOORULLA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO. 17/1, 1^ST CROSS Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A APPANNA BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560032.

COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. SRI. N. MOAHMMED MUJEERULLA S/O LATE M.V. MOHAMMED NOORULLA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NO. 17/1, 1^ST CROSS APPANNA BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR BENGALURU-560032.

3. SMT. SUMAIYA TAZEEN D/O LATE M.V. MOHAMMED NOORULLA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO. 17/1, 1^ST CROSS APPANNA BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR BENGALURU-560032.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2024 PASSED ON IA IN O.S.No.2200/2021 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA FILED U/O 7 RULE

11(a), (b) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff who is aggrieved by the rejection of plaint by the Court of first instance in O.S.No.2200/2021.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff, who is the son of defendant No.1, instituted O.S.No.2200/2021 seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father, late M.V. Mohammed Noorulla, along with other family members, had jointly purchased the suit schedule property in the name of defendant No.1, who is his mother. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the brother and sister of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has pleaded that his father died intestate on 18.05.2019, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as his legal heirs. It is further asserted that after the death of his father, the plaintiff and defendants continued to remain members of a joint family and that the suit schedule property continued to be in their joint possession. On the said premise, the plaintiff claims entitlement to a share in the suit schedule property and seeks partition and separate possession. The cause for filing the suit, according to the plaintiff, arose when he obtained the revenue records and came to know that defendant No.1 had alienated the suit schedule property, which, according to him, necessitated the present action for partition.

4. On receipt of summons, defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed her written statement, categorically denying the plaint averments in their entirety. Defendant No.1 asserted that she had independently purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 19.03.1996 from out of her own earnings and savings and, therefore, denied the plaintiff’s claim that the property is ancestral or joint family property. She further contended that under Mohammedan Law, no concept of joint family or birth right exists and that during the lifetime of the owner, the son does not acquire any vested or contingent right in the property. On these grounds, defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint.

5. The trial Court, upon consideration of the averments made in the plaint, the contentions urged in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of CPC, and the objections filed by the plaintiff, has passed the impugned order rejecting the plaint, holding that the suit is barred by law and does not disclose a cause of action.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing f