- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8118 CRP No. 100006 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100006 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. BOURAWWA W/O. SADASHIV PUJERI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AKKIMARADI, TAL: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN – 587 312. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAGAR I. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUNANDA W/O. MAHARUDRAYYA MATHAD, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: AKKIMARDI, TAL: MUDHOL, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN – 587 312. 2. SMT. NETRA @ DEEPA W/O. GURAYYA KATTIMANI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HARLAPUR, TAL: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN – 582 115. 3. SRI. MAHARUDRAYYA S/O. IRAYYA MATHAD, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AKKIMARDI, TAL: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN- 587 312. …RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE ORDER DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.98/2022 BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT MUDHOL ON IA NO.5 FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 R/W SECTION 151 OF C.P.C 1908, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8118 CRP No. 100006 of 2025 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This petition is filed by defendant No.2, being aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2024 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol passed on I.A. No.V filed under order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, rejecting the application in O.S. No.98/2022. 2. The above suit in O.S. No.98/2022 has been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 / plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of two items of suit properties, contending that defendant No.1 is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2. That one propositus Irayya Mathad, died long ago, leaving behind his wife and children, namely Maharudrayya (defendant No.1), Shivayya, the deceased Mahantayya, and the deceased Mallayya as his class-I heirs. A partition was entered into between defendant No.1 and his brother as - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8118 CRP No. 100006 of 2025 per ME No.211 dated 25.08.1994, wherein the western side of R.S. No.45 fell to the share of defendant No.1. Accordingly, names were mutated in the ROR. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are members of an undivided joint Hindu Family, and the suit properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. There has been no partition between plaintiff and defendant No.1 in respect of the suit properties. Defendant No.2 based on a registered deed of sale dated 14.02.2022 executed by defendant No.1, is denying the entitlement of the plaintiff in the suit property. Hence, the suit for partition. 3. Defendant No.2 filed an application seeking rejection of plaint, contending that the averments in paragraph No.5 of the plaint disclose that the properties were acquired by defendant No.1 through partition, and said properties are thus his independent properties. Defendant No.1, being the absolute owner, sold the said properties to defendant No.2. Therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standii to file the suit for partition or seek a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8118 CRP No. 100006 of 2025 declaration regarding the deed of sale. Hence, sought for rejection of plaint. Objections to said application were filed. 4. The trial Court, by the impugned order, after referring to the plaint averments and position of law, rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 has approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel, retreating the contents of the application and the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition, submits that a perusal of paragraph No.4 of the plaint indicates that the property is the absolute property of defendant No.1, acquired though partition, and thus cannot be subjected to partition and separate possession. 6. The trial Court, referring to the contentions urged in the application held that the averments cannot be read in isolation. In paragraph No.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff specifically claims that the suit properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8118 CRP No. 100006 of 2025 and that no partition has taken place between them regarding the suit property. 7. The memorandum of facts annexed to the application containing averments which are in the nature of a written statement and cannot be considered for rejecting the plaint. Unless defendant No.2 makes out a case from a bare reading of the plaint, falling within the parameters of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the plaint cannot be rejected. 8. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. No grounds are made out. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11