THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R. NATARAJ
SRI UDAY KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SMT PUTTAMMA – Respondent
RFA 2769/2025
##PAGE1##
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17664 RFA No. 2769 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2769 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI UDAY KUMAR S/O. LATE. CHIKKATHIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
2. SRI. GOVINDARAJU K.C S/O. LATE. CHIKKATHIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
3. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH K.C.
S/O. LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT. KODIHALLY VILLAGE, KALLUPALYA MAJARE, GULUR HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 217.
Digitally signed by …APPELLANTS HEMALATHA J
Location: (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V B, ADVOCATE)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SMT PUTTAMMA W/O. LATE. KRISHNAIAH
S/O. DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
2. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. LATE. THIMMAIAH
##PAGE2##- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17664 RFA No. 2769 of 2025
HC-KAR
S/O. DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
3. SRI. RANGAIAH S/O. LATE. DASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
4. SRI. MUKKUNDAIAH S/O. LATE. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
5. SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH S/O. LATE. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
6. SRI. NAGAIAH S/O. LATE. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
7. SRI. RAJU S/O. LATE. RANGAPPA @ VENKATARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
8. SRI. LOKESH S/O. LATE. RANGAPPA @ VENKATARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
9. SRI. RAJU. G S/O. LATE. GOVINDAIAH K.T.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT. KODIHALLI VILLAGE KALLUPALYA MAJARE, GULUR HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 118.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMISH G., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.8)
##PAGE3##- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17664 RFA No. 2769 of 2025
HC-KAR
RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.IV (STATED AS I.A. NO.I IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER) IN O.S NO.169/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU., ALLOWING THE IA NO.IV FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) READ WITH
SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is a plaintiffs' appeal challenging the order dated
29.10.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Tumakuru, on I.A. No.IV filed by the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 8 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in O.S. No.169/2018, by which the plaint was rejected on the ground that it did not disclose cause of action and that it was barred under Order
XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they
were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs while the respondents herein were the
defendants.
##PAGE4##- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17664 RFA No. 2769 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. The suit in O.S No.169/2018 was filed for partition
and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ share in the suit ‘A’ schedule properties and for 1/5th share in the suit ‘B’ schedule properties. The plaintiffs claimed that they are the children of Sri Chikkathimmaiah, Son of Sri Doddathimmegowda. They claimed that the suit ‘A’ schedule properties were purchased by their father in terms of a sale deed dated 14.04.1959 and after his death, they were in possession of the said properties. They claimed that the suit ‘B’ schedule properties were the undivided family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. They claimed that their uncle filed O.S No.28/1991 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Tumakuru, against their father and his other brothers for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the properties involved were land in Survey Nos.11/1 and 26/3, which are presently included as item No.1 in the suit 'A' schedule and as item No.6 in the suit ‘B’ schedule respectively. The said suit was compromised. They claimed that they never allowed the defendants to divide the suit 'B' schedule properties as per the compromise decree drawn in O.S No. 28/1991. Therefore, they filed the instant suit for
##PAGE5##- 5 -
NC
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.