- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44725 CRP No. 389 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. 389 OF 2021 (IO) BETWEEN: H.G. DILIP KUMAR S/O LATE H.G. GURUMURTHY RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.35, K.R.ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-04. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE DASAPPA, W/O LATE JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O KAGGLIPURA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 62. 2. RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 62. 3. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O JAVARAIAH, MAJOR, R/O KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44725 CRP No. 389 of 2021 UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 62. 4. SMT. MANGAMMA W/O LAKSHMAIAH, MAJOR, R/AT K.E.B.QUARTERS, SUBRAMANYAPURA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 61. 5. H.Y. RAMAIAH S/O.LATE R.YELAPPA, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.124, 42ND CROSS, JAYANAGARA 8TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 82. 6. SMT. USHA W/O H.Y.RAMAIAH, MAJOR, RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.124, 42ND CROSS, JAYANAGARA 8TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 82. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARAIAH H.M, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.10.2022, NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.III IN OS.NO.860/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU REJECTING THE I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44725 CRP No. 389 of 2021 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. Vijayakumar S.C., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Somashekharaiah H.M learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Defendant No.7 is the revision petitioner who has filed the present revision petition challenging the validity of the order passed on I.A No. III in O.S No. 860/2012. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition is as under:- 3.1 A suit came to be filed by the 1st respondent in O.S No.860/2012 for partition and separate possession in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as suit property). Schedule "All the piece and parcel of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.49, situated at K.Choodahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44725 CRP No. 389 of 2021 Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 7 acres 10 guntas bounded on: East by: Land of Sampanna, West by : Land of Thimmaiah, North by: Land of Sampanna, South by : Land of Mohideen Sab". 3.2. Petitioner purchased the same from his vendor who got the title by sale deed from the brother of the 1st respondent. 3.3 Pursuant to the suits summons, defendant entered appearance and contended that suit is barred by time and plaintiff cannot maintain the suit as she is not a coparcener by the time alienation has taken place and therefore, suit is a speculator suit and need to be rejected. Plaint is speculative one and needs to be rejected. 3.4 Same was opposed by the plaintiff by filing detailed written objections. 4. Learned Trial Judge dismissed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by the 7th defendant who is the purchaser of the suit property. Same is assailed in the present revision petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44725 CRP No. 389 of 2021 5. Sri. S.C.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that by the time the suit was filed, property had been sold by the brother of the plaintiff to petitioners-vendor. 6. Therefore, suit is not only barred by time but at the time of alienation, plaintiff cannot be treated as a coparcener of the joint family and by taking advantage of the amendment to the Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a vexatious suit came to be filed and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Per contra, Sri. Somashekharaiah H.M, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned order. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma -vs- Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1, there is a need for enquiry as to when succession opened and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44725 CRP No. 389 of 2021 whether at all brother of the plaintiff had every right to sell the property to the vendor of the revision petitioner. 10. At the most, it is a defence that can be taken by the revision petitioner in the suit and substantiate the same during the trial. 11. Since there is a triable issue that has arisen from the rival pleadings, rejection of the plaint at the threshold is impermissible. Same has been rightly considered by the Trial Court in the impugned order. 12. Thus, the impugned order does not require any interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 13. Hence, following:- ORDER Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72