- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9486-DB RFA No. 346 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.346 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1. SMT BYLAMMA @ BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE GANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT V/O RANGASWAMY NO.54/59, 16TH CROSS THIGALARAPALYA MAIN ROAD KALIKAMBANAGAR, NAGASANDRA POST. 2. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O SRI GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.34, DODDERI KULUNALLI POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-572 123. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O SRI KUMMANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS AREKERE & AREKERE POST HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-571 415. Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9486-DB RFA No. 346 of 2014 2. SMT. LAKKAMMA W/O SRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE & POST THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI NELAMANGALA POST BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-572 123. 3. SMT. LAKSHAMMA W/O SRI APPANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.60, KANAKARAJU BUILDING, 5TH CROSS, RAJAGOPALANAGAR MAIN ROAD GANAPATHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 058. 4. SRI. RANGAHANUMAIAH S/O LATE L. HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 5. SRI. R. RANGASWAMY S/O RANGAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 6. SRI. R. MUNIRAJU S/O RANGAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT DASANAPURA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI & POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 7. SMT. R NAGARATHNA W/O SRI PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.63, 1ST MAIN PARIMALA NAGAR, KANTEERAVA STUDIO MAIN ROAD, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 086. 8. SMT. R. VIJAYAMMA W/O SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT COTTONPET, BANGALORE. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9486-DB RFA No. 346 of 2014 9. SMT. KAMALA W/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 10. KUM. D.R. GAYANA D/O SRI RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS 11. KUM. D.R. SOUNDARYA D/O SRI RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN THEIR GRAND MOTHER SMT. KAMALA, W/O SIDDAPPA R/AT JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI & POST NELAMANGALA TALUK-572 123. 12. SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT DASANAPURA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI AND POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. 13. SRI GANGANNA B.B S/O SRI BADDAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.645 3RD CROSS, SWIMMING POOL MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 086, 14. D.B. RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 15. D.B. CHANDRANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 16. D.B. BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9486-DB RFA No. 346 of 2014 17. D.B. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 18. D.B. ANJAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.14 TO 18 ARE THE SONS OF BYALAPPA, RESIDENTS OF DEVANNAPALYA DASANAPURA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI & POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. 19. SRI H.T. VENKATA KRISHNAPPA S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.421, KANAKPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-571 511. R19 SINCE THE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SMT. H.V.SOUBHAGYA I.E., RESPONDENT NO.20. AMENDMENT MADE AS PER ORDER DATED 10/11/2022. 20. H V SOUBHAGYA W/O H.D. GANGARAJU D/O SRI. LATE H.T. VENKATA KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.24, 3RD CROSS, 6TH MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J.D. KASHINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. MOHAN M.S, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R6 TO R8 & R12, SRI. MOHAN R, ADVOCATE FOR R20. R5, R9, R14, R15, R16, R17 & R18-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED R10 & R11 ARE MINORS REP.BY R9 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.02.2023-APPEAL ABATED IN RESPECT OF R19, VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2023- R20 IS TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R19) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9486-DB RFA No. 346 of 2014 THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W ORDER 41 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2013 PASSED IN O.S.498/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This Regular First Appeal is filed challenging the order passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.498/2013 dated 25.11.2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, whereby the learned Civil Judge allowed I.A.No.3 and rejected the plaint. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellants are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants. 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., items No.1 to 5 situated at Dasanapura Village and Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. On service of the suit - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9486-DB RFA No. 346 of 2014 summons, defendant No.13 i.e., respondent No.13 appeared before the Trial Court and filed an application i.e., I.A.No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC praying to reject the plaint for want of cause of action. It is contended by defendant No.13 that, one Late L. Rangaiah was the owner of item No.4 of the suit schedule property and on his demise, his only son Sri. Rangahanumaiah succeed him. The said Sri. Rangahanumaiah along with his mother Smt. Byramma and his sons Sri. Rangaswamy and Muniraju conveyed the same in favour of defendant No.13 vide sale deed dated 16.07.2004. Further, plaintiffs have executed a registered confirmation deed dated 17.03.2007 by accepting the sale transaction of item No.4 of the suit schedule property by Sri. Rangahanumaiah and others in favour of him. By suppressing the said material facts, the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession. It is further contended that not just item No.4, but all other suit schedule properties i.e., items No.1 to 3 and 5 were conveyed prior to 20.12.2004. As such, the suit is barred under Hindu Succession Act. However, the plaintiffs filed objection to the application. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9486-DB RFA No. 346 of 2014 4. The Trial Court upon perusal of the parties' pleadings, as enumerated in the plaint, written statement, I.A.No.3 and objections, framed the following point for consideration: "Whether the defendant No.13 has made out grounds to reject the plaint?" 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents, the Trial Court answered the point raised above in affirmative and allowed I.A.No.3 by rejecting the plaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs sought the instant appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel Smt. Sona Vakkund for the appellants, Sri J.D. Kashinath for respondents No.1 to 3, Sri Mohan M.S., for respondents No.4, 6 to 8 and 12 and Sri Mohan R., for respondent No.20. 7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs is that the Trial Court grossly erred in not appreciating the contention of the plaintiffs and that there was no partition in the family of Late L. Rangaiah. Further, the Trial Court additionally erred by not considering the fact that - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9486-DB RFA No. 346 of 2014 the plaintiffs are the daughters of Late L. Rangaiah; they being coparceners have right over the suit schedule property. The documents placed by the defendants i.e., the sale deeds are sham documents created to defeat the rights of the daughters. Therefore, the same is not binding on the plaintiffs who have attained the status of coparceners following the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 2005. She further contended that, whether there is any cause of action or not to file a suit is determinable, solely, on recording the evidence and upon hearing the parties and merely based on the application by the defendant the plaint cannot be rejected. Accordingly, she prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court. 8. Refuting the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that the learned Trial Court on considering the entire evidence placed before it, passed a well reasoned order which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that albeit there are 5 suit schedule properties, however, all these properties were disposed off prior to 20.12.2004 based on the registered - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9486-DB RFA No. 346 of 2014 partition deed executed in the family dated 14.07.2004. As such, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717, the suit is barred by Hindu Succession Act, 2005 and the Trial Court, rightly allowed the application and rejected the plaint. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the sole point arising for our consideration is: "Whether the Trial Court is justified in allowing I.A.No.3, thereby rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.498/2013?" 10. We have given our anxious consideration both on the arguments advanced by the respective parties and on perusing the comprehensive evidence adduced before us. On careful perusal, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession in items No.1 to 5. The document No.24 adduced by the plaintiff is the partition deed dated 14.07.2004 between the family of Late L. Rangaiah. Further, the sale deeds in respect of items No.1 to 5 were executed prior to 20.12.2004. As far as item No.4 is concerned, the sale deed was executed on 16.07.2004. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9486-DB RFA No. 346 of 2014 Subsequently, a registered confirmation deed dated 17.03.2007 was executed by the plaintiffs by accepting the sale deed dated 16.07.2004 in respect of item No.4. In such circumstance, it is compounded that the sale transaction dated 16.07.2004 was well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs by suppressing the said material facts, instituted the suit against the defendants seeking partition and separate possession. Nevertheless, items No.1 to 5 were sold prior to 20.12.2004. 11. The proviso to Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 reads as under: "(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,— (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9486-DB RFA No. 346 of 2014 Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004." 12. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma referred supra, in (i) and (ii) of paragraph No.129 held as under: "129. Resultantly, we answer the reference as under: (i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Successions Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. (ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born either with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004. (iii) xxx (iv) xxx (v) xxx" 13. On applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case to the facts and circumstances of this case, the disposing of all items No.1 to 5 of the suit schedule - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9486-DB RFA No. 346 of 2014 properties have taken place before 20.12.2004, as such, though the plaintiffs being the daughters of Late L. Rangaiah confer the status of coparceners and saves as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 and the law laid down in the Vineeta Sharma's case. Against this backdrop, the Trial Court has rightly allowed I.A.No.3 and rejected the plaint. We find no good grounds to interfere in the order passed by the Trial Court and accordingly, we answer point raised above in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Regular First Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1