- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42740 CRP No. 496 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.496 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI KORI DEEPU KUMAR S/O KORI MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, INDUSTRIALIST AND MERCHANT, NEAR PRIVATE BUS STAND, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN CODE-577217. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR U, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MS SWARNA @ PREETHI D/O E. ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION STUDENT, RESIDING AT MEDLERI VILLAGE, RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT, PIN CODE 581115. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHOUDESHWARI NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT, PIN CODE-581115. 2. SMT. ROOPA, W/O KORI ERANNA, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42740 CRP No. 496 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDING AT HONNALI TALUK, HONNALI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, PIN CODE-577217. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHOUDESHWARI NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, RANEBENNUR TLUK, RANEBENNUR DISTRICT, HAVERI DISTRICT, PIN CODE-581115. 3. SMT. KORI RATHNAMMA, W/O KORI MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND INDUSTRIALIST, NEAR PRIVATE BUS STAND, HONNALI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT. PIN CODE-577217. 4. SRI.KORI ERANNA, S/O KORI MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, INDUSTRIALIST AND MERCHANT, NEAR PRIVATE BUS STAND, HONNALI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT. PIN CODE-577217. 5. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O BASAVARAJA PILLE, D/O KORI MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD, RESIDING AT BEHIND NEW BUS STAND, LAKSHMESHWARA TALUK- 582116. GADAG DISTRICT, PIN CODE-582116 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42740 CRP No. 496 of 2025 6. SMT. KALPANA, W/O AJJAMPURADA PRATHAP, D/O KORI MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT VASANTHA ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DARSHAN GOWDA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR SITTING AT HONNALI, IN O.S.NO.53/2014, WHEREBY I.A.NO.41, FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, WAS DISMISSED AND THEREBY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION BY REJECTING THE PLAINT, AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri U.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 2. Revision Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S No. 53/2014 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihara, sitting at Honnali, for the relief of partition and separation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42740 CRP No. 496 of 2025 3. Contention of the second defendant is that suit item Nos. 5(a) to 5(e), 8 to 13 are the absolute properties of the second defendant. Therefore, plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in respect of the suit properties claiming partition. 4. Sri Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 1169 and contended that the second defendant had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought for rejection of the plaint as the suit is barred by law. 5. Learned Trial Judge, after taking into consideration the relevant aspects of the matter and entertaining the objections of the plaintiffs, rejected the application filed by the second defendant vide I.A.No.41 inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.9 to 12 as under: “9. The defendant No.2 has filed this application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that defendant No.2 is carrying on business independently and that item No.5(a) to 5(e) properties and item No.8 to 13 properties are his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42740 CRP No. 496 of 2025 self acquired properties. That the other suit schedule properties are inherited from Kori Manjappa and therefore, plaintiffs cannot claim any right in them. 10. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit against defendants No.1 to 5 for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties which are agricultural lands, house property and movables. Plaintiffs initially instituted the suit against defendants No.1 to 9 but, later they got deleted defendants No.6 to 9 from the cause title. Plaintiffs are the daughter and wife of defendant No.3. Plaintiffs aver that one Kori Manjappa S/o Shivarudrappa was the propositus. Defendant No.1 is the wife of this Kori Manjappa. Defendants No.2 to 4 are the children of Kori Manjappa and defendant No.1. It is averred that this Kori Manjappa died on 05.10.2008 intestate. That the plaintiff and defendants are the members of a joint family and are coparceners. That as defendant No.3 neglected the plaintiffs, they are residing at the parental home of plaintiff No.2. That in order to deprive plaintiff No.1 of her right in the suit schedule properties, it is averred that defendants are trying to create fictitious documents in respect of the suit schedule properties and are attempting to sell the same. That plaintiff No.1 is the granddaughter of this Kori Manjappa. That item No. 1 to 4, Item No.14 to 16 properties are the ancestral properties of Kori Manjappa. That the said properties are inherited from Kori Manjappa. That after the death of the propositus the khata of item NO.1 to 3 properties is transferred in the name of defendant No.1 and item No.4 property is standing in the name of the propositus. Item No.5 to 7 properties - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42740 CRP No. 496 of 2025 are purchased out of the joint family nucleus. That item No.8 to 13 properties are purchased in the name of defendant No.4 out of the joint family funds and the income derived from item NO.1 to 4 properties. That Kori Manjappa started a fertilizer business and now defendant No.3 and 4 are carrying on the same as defendants are acting adverse to the interest of the minor plaintiff, the present suit. 11. Now this application is filed by defendant No.2, on the ground that they have inherited the suit schedule properties other than item No.5(a) to 5(e) and 8 to 13 from Kori Manjappa and therefore U/Sec. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiffs will not have any right in the suit schedule properties. That defendant No.2 is carrying on a independent business and that item No.5(a) to 5(e) and 8 to 13 are acquired by him and are his self acquired properties. 12. It is well settled principle of law that only the plaint averments will have to be looked into to ascertain whether the pliant is liable to be rejected for the grounds stated in Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In the case on hand the suit is for partition and separate possession. At para 8 of the plaint, it is specifically averred that item No.1 to 4, 14 to 16 properties are the ancestral properties of Kori Manjappa and the other properties were acquired out of the joint family nucleus. Therefore, when plaintiffs specifically feed that the suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties and when there is no specific plead that the suit schedule properties were inherited from Kori Manjappa or - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42740 CRP No. 496 of 2025 that they were his self acquired properties, in my opinion it cannot be said that the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, though U/Sec. 8 of the Hindu Successes ion Act the children inherit the property of her father in the individual capacity but, here in the case on hand. there is a pleading that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant No.2, in the case of Chandrasen's case, Uttam Vs. Saubhag Singh and in Ms. Mallika's case, the same judgments were not Under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, when the plaint averments disclose about their being a pleading about the nature of the suit schedule properties as ancestral properties. In my opinion the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by Law. Whatever is the defense taken up by defendant No.2 has to be considered later while deciding the suit on merits. Therefore, at this stage there are no grounds to reject the plaint as barred by Law. Accordingly, for these reasons I answer point No.1 in the Negative.” 6. Veracity of the same is called in question in this revision question. 7. Sri Shivakumar, learned counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contented that the plaintiffs cannot take advantage of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and claim right, title and interest in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42740 CRP No. 496 of 2025 respect of item Nos.5(a) to 5(e) and 8 to 13 of the suit properties and sought for admitting the revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents absent. 9. Having taken note of the relevant aspects of the matter, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020)9 SCC 1, the principles of law laid down by the counsel for the revision petitioner in Uttam’s case supra stood impliedly overruled. 10. Accordingly, the impugned Order cannot be faulted with. 11. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) However whatever the defence available to the second defendant is kept open to be urged during the trial in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 51