- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31025 MSA No. 132 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 132 OF 2024 (RO) BETWEEN: G. KRUPANANDA S/O GEORGE AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RA/T NO. 27, 1ST MAIN 1ST CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 064. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VEENA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY H.B, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT HIRE NAGAVALLI VILLAGE, HIRE NAGAVALLI POST, MANDIKAL HOBLI, C.B. PURA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 104. 2. SMT. SHILPA A N w/O. K. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO. 40, SRI. LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHIKKA KESHAVA RAO LAYOUT, SAMETHENHALLI DODDA, DUNNASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 560 117. 3. SMT. TRIVENI.N S/O. M.S SHEKAR, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31025 MSA No. 132 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO. 153/A, NARAYANARAJU LAYOUT, BENNERUGAHATA NATIONAL PARK ROAD, NEAR SRI. SAI SADBHAVN SCHOOL, BANGALORE - 560 083. 4. SMT. REKHA A.N W/O. R. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO. 56, CHAMPAKADHAMA LAYOUT, BANNERUGAHATTA POST, BANGALORE - 560 083. 5. SRI. A.B NAGARAJ S/O. LATE. A.C BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT MELUR, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, C.B PURA DISTRICT - 571 102. 6. SRI. G. BACHHEGOWDA S/O LATE. G. MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT KAMBADAHALLI MELURU POST, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 102. …RESPONDENTS (R1, R2 AND R6 ARE SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 19.02.2025, SERVICE TO R3 AND R5 HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 24.07.2025, SERVICE TO R4 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.07.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.24/2023 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SITTING AT CHINTAMANI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.4 IN OS NO.347/2022 ON THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31025 MSA No. 132 of 2024 FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA., ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a AND d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT WITH A DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER ON MERITS AFTER FRAMING ISSUES AND GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH PARTIES TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel Sri. G. Balakrishna Shastry. 2. The present second appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the Order passed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.24/2023 reversing the order rejecting the plaint passed in O.S.No.347/2022. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31025 MSA No. 132 of 2024 3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the present appeal are as under: A suit for partition came to be filed by the respondents claiming to be the minor daughters of 1st defendant. Alienation was made by the 1st defendant in respect of the suit property prior 20.12.2004. Present appellant is the purchaser of the suit property being the defendant No.3 who had purchased the property from defendant who had earlier purchased the property from the 1st defendant. 4. Defendant No.3 filed application under Order VII Rule 11 (a and d) to reject the plaint for want of cause of action and on the question of limitation. 5. The learned Trial Judge by assigning reasons in para No.11, rejected the plaint. For the sake of certainty, para No.11 of the Order of the Trial Court is culled out hereunder : - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31025 MSA No. 132 of 2024 "The plaintiffs are the daughters of defendant No.1 they are coparceners but before 20th December 2004 the suit property alienated by defendant No.1 therefore in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Vineetha Sharma V/s Rakehs Sharma the plaintiffs are not coparcener not entitled relief. The judgment cited by advocate for plaintiffs based on the averments of plaint this suit is barred by law of limitation. Therefore, I hold point No.1 in the Affirmative.' 6. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal, before the District Court in RA No.24/2023. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and discussing the relevant aspects of the matter in the light of the decisions relied upon by the parties, set-aside the order of the Trial Judge and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, by assigning the proper reasons in paragraphs No.22 to 24 of its judgment. Those paragraphs are culled out hereunder for ready reference: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31025 MSA No. 132 of 2024 22. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the following decisions; 1) AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT, 2607; Vishwambhar and others v. Laxminarayana (dead) through Lrs. and another. 2) AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 2421; T.Arivandandam v. T.V.Satyapal and another. 3) AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT, 634; I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others. 4) Civil Appeal No.2960 of 2019; Ragvendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Lrs. I have perused the above said decisions. The above said decisions are not applicable to the case on hand. Because without giving an opportunity to the plain tiffs to prove their case on merits the above citations will not support the case of the respondent No.3. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the following decisions; 1) (2018)5 Supreme Court Case, 644; Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen and others. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31025 MSA No. 132 of 2024 2) (2008)12 Supreme Court Cases, 661; Kamala and others v. K.T.Eshwara SA and others. 3) (2012)8 Supreme Court Cases, 701; Bhau Ram v. Janak Singh and others. 4) I.L.R. 2008 KAR 390 (online); Mrs.Anuradha Shenoy v. N. Nanjappa. I have perused the above said decisions. The gist of the above said decisions are to the effect that "While considering the application for rejection of plaint, averments in plaint must be considered and not what is stated in the written statement." As such the above said decisions are aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hands. 24. In view of the above said discussions I am of the considered opinion that the matter has to be remanded back to the trial court with a direction to dispose of the matter on merits after framing necessary issues and by giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence. Hence, the interference of this court is necessary. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative and point No.2 is answered in the affirmative." 8. Being aggrieved by the same, third defendant is before this Court in this appeal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31025 MSA No. 132 of 2024 9. Sri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for the appellant - third defendant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that even though necessary details are not pleaded in the application with regard to the question of limitation, taking note of the age of the plaintiffs and the very first alienation that has taken place by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, who is the vendor of the present appellant and also computing the age of the eldest among the plaintiffs attaining majority, the suit was per se barred by limitation. Therefore, rejection of the plaint by the learned Trial Judge was just and proper. 10. He would further contend that allowing such suits to continue would not only result in abuse of process of law but also impairs the rights of the parties which is finally settled before the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31025 MSA No. 132 of 2024 11. In this appeal, the respondents are duly served with the notice of appeal and un-represented. 12. In the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, this Court perused the material on record. As could be seen from the material on record, the learned Trial Judge has not assigned any reason, whatsoever, to reject the plaint, except quoting that the alienation has taken place earlier to 20.12.2004 and therefore the principles of law enunciated in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. reported in (2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1 would be of no avail for the plaintiffs to maintain the suit. 13. It is also pertinent to note that necessary details as to the date of first alienation by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant who is the vendor of the third defendant; the date of the eldest among plaintiffs attaining majority and the date of suit filed by the plaintiffs having not been mentioned in the application - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31025 MSA No. 132 of 2024 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the learned Trial Judge rejecting the plaint only taking note of the fact that the alienations have taken place earlier to 20.12.2004 so as to provide the benefit of proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, is per se illegal. 14. Though the learned Trial Judge in the first appellate Court did not state in so many words about the said aspect of the matter, setting aside the order of the learned Trial Judge rejecting the plaint and remitting the matter for disposal on merits has thus is based on sound and proper appreciation of the material on record which requires no further consideration in this appeal. 15. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. However, the question of limitation shall be urged by the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31025 MSA No. 132 of 2024 defendants in accordance with law, as a defence in the suit. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending I.A.No.2/2024 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC,BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 CT: BHK