Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12311 (KAR)

GOUREDDY VENKATESHWAR REDDY v. A VIRODH AND ORS

CRP/200016/2025 · 2025-06-11

Ravi V Hosmani

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3019 CRP No. 200016 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.200016 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: GOUREDDY VENKATESHWAR REDDY S/O GOUREDDY NARAYANREDDY, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: MALESANGAM MANIPALLY MANDAL, SANGAREDDY DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE – 502 345. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.S. SAJJANSHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AVIRODH S/O GOPALRAO KATTIMANI AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BIDAR CROSS CHINCHOLI, TQ: CHINCHOLI, DIST : KALABURAGI – 585 301. 2. NISHABDHA D/O GOPALRAO KATTIMANI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BIDAR CROSS CHINCHOLI, TQ: CHINCHOLI, DIST : KALABURAGI – 585 301. 3. SHUBHODH S/O GOPALRAO KATTIMANI Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3019 CRP No. 200016 of 2025 AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BIDAR CROSS CHINCHOLI, TQ: CHINCHOLI, DIST : KALABURAGI – 585 301. 4. ROOPKALA W/O GOPALRAO KATTIMANI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BIDAR CROSS CHINCHOLI, TQ: CHINCHOLI, DIST : KALABURAGI – 585 301. 5. GOPALRAO S/O SAIDAPPA KATTIMANI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BIDAR CROSS CHINCHOLI, TQ: CHINCHOLI, DIST : KALABURAGI – 585 301. …RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHINCHOLI ON I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.86/2024 AT ANNEXURE-G DATED 12.12.2024 AND REJECT THE PLAIT BY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.II AT ANNEXURE- E. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3019 CRP No. 200016 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 12.12.2024 passed by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chincholi, (for short, 'trial Court') in O.S.no.86/2024 on IA.no.II, this revision petition is filed. 2. Smt.M.N.Swati, learned counsel for petitioner submitted petitioner was defendant no.3 in O.S.no.86/2024 filed by respondents no.1 to 3 herein against respondents no.4, 5 and petitioner respectively for relief of partition, separate possession and declaration about partition deed dated 04.01.2023 as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs etc. 3. On service of summons, petitioner herein entered appearance and filed IA.no.II under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of plaint on ground that it failed to disclose cause of action and suit was barred by law. It was submitted in affidavit filed in support of application, petitioner had stated that plaint did not disclose how plaintiffs got right to sue defendants. There was no pleading or document to show that suit property was succeeded by defendants from their ancestor. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3019 CRP No. 200016 of 2025 4. It was stated suit property was purchased by defendant no.2 from Smt.Bismilla B., on 11.05.2015 and transferred in name of defendant no.1. Subsequently, defendants no.1 and 2 joined together and sold suit property to defendant no.3 under registered sale deed dated 04.01.2023. It was further submitted plaintiff no.1 had filed objections before revenue authorities at time of mutation of name of defendant no.3, wherein defendant no.3 had paid additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to defendant no.2 and thereafter plaintiff no.1 had entered into compromise and withdrawn objection. Thus, plaintiffs had no right to sue in respect of self-acquired property of defendants no.1 and 2 and therefore submitted plaint was liable for rejection. It was submitted application was opposed by plaintiffs by filing objections. On consideration, trial Court under impugned order rejected application. 5. It was submitted when suit property was purchased by defendant no.2, name of defendant no.1 was got entered along with him and thereafter they sold suit property to defendant no.3, there would be no justification for plaintiffs in claiming that suit property was ancestral property of plaintiffs - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3019 CRP No. 200016 of 2025 and defendants. It was also submitted that during life time of defendants no.1 and 2, plaintiffs who were children of defendants no.1 and 2 could not maintain suit for partition. Therefore, plaint was liable for rejection not only on ground of lack of specific pleading about cause of action but also as barred by law. On said grounds, sought for allowing revision petition and to set aside order passed and to allow IA.no.II. 6. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and records submitted along with petition. 7. From above, filing of suit for partition, separate possession and declaration by respondents no.1 to 3 (plaintiffs) against respondents no.4, 5 and present petitioner and relationship between plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2 are not in dispute. Defendant no.3 - purchaser filed IA.no.II for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Saleem Bhai and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others1, has held while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of 1 (2003) 1 SCC 557 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3019 CRP No. 200016 of 2025 CPC, trial Court would require to confine its examination to contents of plaint and documents furnished along with plaint only. There would be a bar against trial Court referring to written statement or documents produced by defendants. 9. Insofar as first contention that plaint is devoid of pleading about cause of action, it is seen that plaintiffs have made clear assertion about suit property being ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2 and as per provisions of Hindu Succession Act, plaintiffs were entitled for their share in same. It is also asserted that on attaining of age of majority, plaintiffs approached defendants no.1 and 2 for partition and separation of their 3/4th share in suit properties. It is stated that on 15.04.2024, defendants no.1 and 2 agreed but thereafter kept postponing same and on 25.05.2024, plaintiffs once again demanded their shares, defendants flatly refused and said refusal was cause of action to file suit. It is averred in plaint that suit property was presently standing in name of defendant no.3 due to collusion between defendants no.1 to 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Liverpool & London S.P. & - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3019 CRP No. 200016 of 2025 I Association Ltd. V. M.V. Sea Success I & Another2, has clarified that for purposes of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, there would be a legal fiction to consider entire plaint averments as true and to examine whether same disclosed approval of cause of action. In instant case, it is contention of defendant no.3 that suit property was not an ancestral property but was purchased by defendant no.2 from Smt.Bismilla B., under registered sale deed dated 11.05.2015 and subsequently name of defendant no.1 was also entered in revenue records along with defendant no.2 and thereafter said property is sold to defendant no.3 under registered sale deed dated 04.01.2023. But, said assertions cannot be taken into account even if defendants produced material in this regard. Whether suit property was ancestral joint family property of plaintiffs and defendants would require to be determined only after recording evidence i.e., trial. 10. Even insofar as contention about suit being barred by law, contention of learned counsel for petitioner that plaintiffs cannot seek partition during lifetime of defendants 2 2004 (9) SCC 512 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3019 CRP No. 200016 of 2025 no.1 and 2 their parents may not stand to scrutiny as plaintiffs’ claim insofar as suit property is as ancestral property wherein every coparcener would have right by birth and would be entitled to seek for partition as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others3. While passing impugned order, learned Trial Judge has taken note of ratio laid down and after assigning proper reasons, rejected application. Since petitioner fails to establish either of grounds for rejection of plaint, I do not see any good grounds to entertain petition. Petition stands dismissed. However, observations of Trial Court in impugned order or by this Court in present order would not prejudice contentions of petitioner at time of final disposal of suit. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE MSR/sn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52 3 2020 (3) KCCR 1993 (SC)