- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44971 CRP No. 347 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 347 OF 2021 (IO) BETWEEN: MRS. NETHRAVATHI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, D/O LATE B.V. JAVARASHETTY, W/O VENKATA SETTEE, R/AT NO.54/318, 7TH MAIN, FIRST FLOOR, 15TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION, WILSON GARDEN, NEAR CHINNAYYA GARDEN, BENGALURU - 30. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. JAYALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, D/O LATE B.V. JAVARASHETTY, R/AT NO.54/318, 7TH MAIN, FIRST FLOOR, 15TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION, WILSON GARDEN, NEAR CHINNAYYA GARDEN, BENGALURU - 30. 2. MR. J.C. CHANDRAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44971 CRP No. 347 of 2021 S/O LATE B.V. JAVARASHETTY, R/AT NO.54/318, 7TH MAIN, FIRST FLOOR, 15TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION, WILSON GARDEN, NEAR CHINNAYYA GARDEN, BENGALURU - 30. 3. MR. GURU NAGA SOUNDRA S/O N SARANGAPANI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.2386, 8TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE, DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 016. 4. MISS. MEGHANA C D/O J. CHANDRAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.1/11, MOUNT JOY ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU - 19 …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2021 PASSED ON I.A. IN OS.NO.3982/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-16) BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44971 CRP No. 347 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Sunil. S. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondents, having regard to the fact that the issue to be thrashed out in the present revision petition does not require presence of respondents. 3. Revision petitioner is the Defendant No.2 in O.S No.3982/2018. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present suit are as under:- 3.1 A suit for partition and separate possession in respect of following properties came to be filed which are hereinafter referred to as suit properties. SCHEDULE-A PROPERTY All the piece and parcel of House Property bearing House List No.2. Khatha No.964. Assessment No.166, situated at Kothanur village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bangalore previously within the limits of Bommanahalli CMC Presently within the limits of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, measuring East - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44971 CRP No. 347 of 2021 to West 60 feet and North to South: 40 in all measuring 2400 square feet and bounded on the East By : Road, West By : Private Property, North By : Site No.3, South By : Site No.1. SCHEDULE-B PROPERTY All the piece and parcel of property bearing House No.91, layout formed by "Sri Mahadeshwara House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., Mysore", "Mahadeshwara Layout", Hebbal, Devaraja Mohalla, Near Vijayanagar 2nd stage, Mysore city, Mysore (Site No.91 formed in Sy.No.222,223,224,225 and 229/4, an extent being 19 acres 11 1/2 guntas, situated at Hebbal village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk) measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 41 feet in all measuring 1230 square feet having constructed 7.50 squares of Ground Floor, 7.50 squares of first floor and 2.17 squares of second floor (total built-up area 17.17 squares) of R.C.C. roofed building with Mosaic tiles flooring with water, electricity and sanitary fittings etc., and bounded on the East By : Property No.90, West By : Property No.92, North By : Property No.72, South By : Road. 4. Plaintiff contended that she is the granddaughter of Sri. B.V. Javarashetty and first defendant. Genealogy is found in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The same is not in dispute. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44971 CRP No. 347 of 2021 5. Plaintiff sought for grant of her share in the suit property which was denied by the second defendant by filing the written statement and also filing application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 6. It is pertinent to note that the relationship is admitted and therefore, the only issue that was required to be thrashed out by the Court below was whether the suit property could be termed as joint family property or not. 7. Learned Trial Judge noting the said fact of the matter, is of the opinion that recording of evidence is necessary to thrash out the real controversy between the parties and dismiss the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 8. The validity of the said order is called in question in this revision petition. 9. Sri. Sunil. S. Rao, learned counsel for petitioner after addressing the arguments for some time contended that the 2nd Defendant is a cancer patient and therefore, suit be expedited before the Court below, in the event of this Court dismissing the revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44971 CRP No. 347 of 2021 10. Whether suit property is joint family property or not cannot be decided at the threshold by hold minitrial. 11. As such, placing the submission of counsel for petitioner on record, following:- ORDER i. The revision petition is dismissed. ii. However, the Trial Court shall expedite the suit and dispose of the same as early as possible. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67