- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB RFA No. 100276 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100276 OF 2023 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. VIMALA W/O. NARASIMHA BHATTA AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TAREHALLI, PO: URATOTA, TAL: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT. 2. RAMAN NARASIMHA BHATTA AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGICULTURIST, R/O. TAREHALLI, PO: URATOTA, TAL: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT. 3. SHUBHA W/O. VINAYAK BHATTA AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BAROORU, PO: BAROORU, TAL: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT. 4. MAITRI W/O. MAHESH HEGDE AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HALLIGADDE, PO: BAKKAL, TAL: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NARASIMHA VENKATRAMAN BHATTA AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. TAREHALLI, PO: URATOTA, TAL: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT-581401. 2. JAYALAKSHMI KOM RAMACHANDRA HEGDE AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MULAKANALLI, PO: AMMINALLI, TAL: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT-581401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ROHIT L.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.14 10:27:32 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB RFA No. 100276 of 2023 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON IA NO. 2 BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, SIRSI DATED 01.04.2023 IN OS NO. 82/2021, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND DISMISSING I.A. NO.2 AND TO RESTORE THE SUIT IN O.S. NO. 82/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, SIRSI, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is filed by the plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 of CPC. Applying the said provisions, the trial court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, which is filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. The plaintiffs have also challenged the compromise decree recorded in O.S.No.26/2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. 3. The facts leading to the case are that; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB RFA No. 100276 of 2023 Before we examine the issue on hand, we deem it appropriate to cull out the family tree, which is as under: Venkatraman Bhat (Died on 19-2-1985) Parvati (Wife) (Died on 11-1-2019) Narasimha(Son) (Def.No.1) Satyanarayan (Son) Jayalaxmi Vimala(Wife)(Plaintiff No.1) (Died unmarried & Issueless) (Defendant No.2) Raman(Son) (Plaintiff No.2) Shubha(Daughter) (Plaintiff No.3) Maitri (Daughter) (Plaintiff No.4) 4. One Venkatraman Bhatta was the propositus. The said Venkatraman Bhatta has a son by name, Narasimha and a daughter by name Jayalakshmi. The present plaintiffs are the wife and children of the said Narasimha, who is arraigned as defendant No.1 in the suit. The present plaintiffs filed a suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. The plaintiffs have also challenged the compromise decree recorded between their father Narasimha and defendant No.2 Jayalakshmi, who are siblings. 5. Defendant No.2 on receipt of summons filed written statement and also filed an application under Order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB RFA No. 100276 of 2023 VII Rule 11(d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the plaintiffs being the children of defendant No.1 cannot maintain an independent suit in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TRILOKI NATH SINGH VS ANIRUDH SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS reported in (2020) AIR (SC) 2111. Defendant No.2 also contended that the suit is barred by limitation and therefore, sought rejection of the plaint. The trial court applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in TRILOKI NATH SINGH (SUPRA) and other judgments, was of the view that the plaintiffs who are wife and children of defendant No.1 cannot maintain a suit and therefore, their remedy is under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. The trial court has also taken cognizance of the fact that the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.26/2012 was before the Lok Adalath and therefore, was of the view that the compromise recorded before the Lok Adalath cannot be challenged by way of separate suit and the aggrieved parties have to avail their remedy in the manner known to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB RFA No. 100276 of 2023 law. The trial court while rejecting the plaint was of the view that the plaintiffs failed to challenge the compromise decree well within the time and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. This order is under challenge. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and learned counsel for defendant No.2. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the reasons assigned by the learned Judge while rejecting the plaint. We have also adverted to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TRILOKI NATH SINGH (SUPRA). 8. Upon a meticulous examination of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TRILOKI NATH SINGH (SUPRA) do not apply to the case at hand. A close scrutiny of the judgment cited reveals that the factual matrix in that case is distinct and materially different. In the cited case, the dispute revolved - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB RFA No. 100276 of 2023 around a person who had acquired title through a judgment debtor and subsequently sought to challenge a compromise decree that had already been entered into between the parties. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the said circumstances, held that a person who derives title from a judgment debtor and who was subject to a compromise decree cannot maintain a separate suit challenging the same, as he lacks an independent right in the property. 9. However, the present case stands on an entirely different footing. The plaintiffs, who are the wife and children of defendant No.1, have instituted the suit seeking partition and a declaration that the compromise decree recorded in O.S.No.26/2012 is not binding on their legitimate rights. The fundamental distinction in the present case is that the plaintiffs, being members of a joint Hindu family, claim their independent and pre- existing rights in the suit schedule properties, which are alleged to be joint family ancestral properties. The well- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB RFA No. 100276 of 2023 established legal position is that in a suit for partition, the rights of the parties are not created for the first time under a decree; rather, the court merely declares and effectuates the existing legal rights of the coparceners. 10. Additionally, under the Bombay School of Hindu Law, to which the parties are subject, coparceners acquire their rights in the ancestral property by birth. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, being the son and daughter of defendant No.1, have an inherent and independent right in the suit schedule properties as coparceners. Furthermore, the fact that defendant No.1, who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, entered into a compromise and accepted a negligible share in the properties is a crucial aspect requiring adjudication. If the compromise decree prejudicially affects the rights of the plaintiffs, they are legally entitled to seek a declaration to establish that the said decree is not binding upon them. The plaintiffs must also be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate the manner in which their independent and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB RFA No. 100276 of 2023 pre-existing rights in the suit schedule properties have been disregarded or unlawfully curtailed by the compromise decree. 11. A thorough examination of the pleadings and legal principles makes it evident that the trial court committed a serious error in invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC to non-suit the plaintiffs at a preliminary stage. The rejection of the plaint by the trial court is not only erroneous but also perverse and arbitrary. The trial court misapplied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in TRILOKI NATH SINGH (SUPRA) and misconstrued the pleadings and reliefs sought by the plaintiffs. In a partition suit, even when a declaration is sought, the principal relief remains the relief of partition, and such matters necessitate a full-fledged trial where the rights and contentions of all parties can be properly examined and adjudicated. Therefore, the trial court’s hasty rejection of the plaint is unsustainable in law, as it effectively negates the substantive rights of the plaintiffs without - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB RFA No. 100276 of 2023 affording them an opportunity for due adjudication. In light of these considerations, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the matter must proceed to trial to ensure that the plaintiffs’ claims are fairly and justly determined in accordance with law. 12. For the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 01.04.2023 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.82/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi is hereby set aside. iii) Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, without expecting any further summons, they are directed to appear before the trial court on 03.04.2025. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4603-DB RFA No. 100276 of 2023 In view of disposal of the appeal, pending I.A’s, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20