##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5239

RFA No. 1978 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1978 OF 2025 (PAR/DEC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI.NAGARJUNA

S/O, MARIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

2. SMT.PRAMILA

D/O MARIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/AT

MALLIMAKANAPURA VILLAGE

SULIBELE HOBLI

HOSAKOTE TALUK

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

Digitally signed

by CHAITHRA A …APPELLANTS

Location: HIGH

COURT OF (BY SRI.NARENDRA S, ADVOCATE)

KARNATAKA

AND:

1. SRI.MARIYAPPA

S/O LATE MUNINAGAPPA

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

MALLIMAKANAPURA VILLAGE

SULIBELE HOBLI

HOSAKOTE TALUK

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5239

RFA No. 1978 of 2025

HC-KAR

2. SRI.AMJAD HUSSAIN

S/O ABDUL KADHAR

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

3. SMT.SHAHINA BEGUM

W/O AMJAD HUSSAIN

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

4. SRI.SAJID HUSSAIN

S/O ABDUL KADHAR

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

5. SMT.SHAMIUNNISA

W/O SAJID HUSSAIN

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT

SIR.M.VISVESHWARAIAH LAYOUT

HOSAKOTE TOWN

HOSAKOTE

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

6. SRI.MOHAMMED TANVEER

S/O C.M.MOHAMMED

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

R/AT NO.15, ALFRED STREET

RICHMOND TOWN

BANGALORE -560025

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.NARAYAN MAYYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.6)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE

ORDER DATED 4.06.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1/2023 IN OS

NO.2493/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,

HOSAKOTE, ALLOWING THE IA NO.1/2023 FILED UNDER ORDER

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5239

RFA No. 1978 of 2025

HC-KAR

7 RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT

AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 plaintiffs

assailing the order dated 04.06.2025 passed in

O.S.No.2493/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Hosakote on an application - I.A.No.1/2023 filed

under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of Civil

Procedure Code, wherein the plaint is rejected by the Trial

Court.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to

as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The genealogical tree of the family reads as

under;

Mariyappa (dead)

Gowramma (wife) (72 years)

|

________________________________________

| |

Nagarjuna (49 Yrs) Pramila (38 Yrs)

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5239

RFA No. 1978 of 2025

HC-KAR

4. Brief facts leading to the case are as under;

The plaintiffs, who are the children of one Mariyappa,

have instituted a suit for partition and separate possession

in O.S.No.2493/2022 (Old No.1323/2016). In addition to

seeking their respective shares in the suit schedule

properties, the plaintiffs have also sought a formal

declaration that the registered sale deed dated 18.08.1995

executed by their father Mariyappa in favour of defendant

Nos.2 to 5 is not binding on their legitimate share.

Consequentially, they have also sought a declaration that

the subsequent registered sale deed dated 08.01.2007

executed by defendant Nos.4 and 5 in favour of defendant

No.6 is also not binding on them.

5. Defendant No.6, on service of summons, entered

appearance and filed a written statement. He also filed an

application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil

Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground

that the suit is barred by law.

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5239

RFA No. 1978 of 2025

HC-KAR

6. The plaintiffs opposed the said application by

filing their statement of objections.

7. The learned Trial Judge, on an examination of the

pleadings and the reliefs sought, proceeded to allow the

application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC and

rejected the plaint holding that the alienations effected by

Mariyappa are protected under the proviso to Section 6 of

the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore, the suit as

framed is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order of

rejection of plaint, the plaintiffs have preferred the present

appeal.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel

appearing for the plaintiffs as well as the learned couns

Click Here to Read the rest of this document