- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54326 CRP No. 742 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 742 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR S S/O LATE SAVANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A NO. 95, 14TH CROSS 10TH MAIN, NGEF LAYOUT NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVAN M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. T. NETHRA D/O SRI. THONTA ARDHYA S AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A NO. 26, SADANANDA NILAYA 1ST MAIN, C CROSS NEAR BALAJI, KALYANAMANTAPPA KUVEMPUNAGAR, HOSAGUDDADAHALLI MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026. 2. SRI. THONTA ARDHYA S S/O LATE SAVANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A NO. 2, GF, SANYUKTHA SERINITY 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BYATARAYANAPURA, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026. 3. SMT. PAVITHRA T D/O. SRI THONTA ARDHYA SANYUKTHA SERINITY, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54326 CRP No. 742 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/A NO. 2, GF 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BYATARAYANAPURA MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N. RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2025. PASSED ON IA NO.V IN OS NO. 26485/2023 ON THE FILE OF LXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH 75), REJECTING THE IA NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. 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.Raghavan M., learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Defendant No.3 in O.S.No.26485/2023 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application vide I.A.No.5 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54326 CRP No. 742 of 2025 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff in O.S.No.26485/2023 with the following prayer in respect of the following immovable properties: PRAYER “Wherefore, the plaintiff most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants: a. Declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd (one third) share in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. b. To effect partition of schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties by metes and bounds and to put the plaintiff in separate possession of her 1/3rd (one Third) share in schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties; c. To order for an enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure from the date of this suit till the date of delivery of 1/3rd (One Third) share in schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties to the plaintiff - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54326 CRP No. 742 of 2025 and for payment of 1/3rd (One third) share in ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties to the plaintiff; d. Award costs of this suit and e. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.” SCHEDULE ‘A’ PROPERTY Immovable residential property site Nos.43 and 44 in Sy. No.72 of Guddadahalli village of Kempapura Agrahara, kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now situated at Kuvempu Nagar, ‘C’ Street, First main road, with PID No.42-72-26 IN BBMP Ward No.26 consisting of building and vacant space within the area of measuring: East to West: 30 feet, and North to South: 94 feet. And bounded as follows: East by: Private property of Hemanth Kumar S., West by: Private property of Shankarappa North by: Conservancy lane South by: Road - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54326 CRP No. 742 of 2025 The building in the above property is a residential property which consists of ground, first and second floors. Further, the building consists of totally 15 portions as detailed hereunder: Ground floor six portions, First floor four portions, Second floor five portions. SCHEDULE ‘B’ PROPERTY Residential apartment bearing flat No.GF-2, situated in the ground floor of the residential apartment building called ‘Sayuktha Serinity’, with a super builtup area of 1225 Sft. Along with one covered car parking in the basement floor, consisting of three bed-rooms, constructed in the property bearing site No.41, with BBMP Khatha No.15, PID No.41-46-15, situated at 1st cross, Byatarayanapura, Mysore Road, Bangalore City measuring: East to West: 40 feet, and North to South: 60 feet, And bounded as follows: East by: Site bearing No.42 belonging to Kenchappa West by: Site No.40, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54326 CRP No. 742 of 2025 North by: Road, South by: Road. The apartment is bounded as follows: East by: Stair case and common area, West by: Open to sky, North by: Open to sky, South by: Flat No.GF-1. SCHEDULE ‘C’ PROPERTY Portion of first floor of schedule ‘A’ property in immovable residential property site Nos.43 and 44 in survey No.72 of Guddadahalli village of Kempapura Agrahara, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now situated at Kuvempur Nagara, ‘C’ street, first main road, with PID No.42-72-26 in BBMP Ward No.26 consisting of building and vacant space within the area of measuring: East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 94 feet. And bounded as follows: East by: Private property of Hemanth Kumar S., West by: Private property of Shankarappa, North by: Conservancy lane, South by: Road. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54326 CRP No. 742 of 2025 The building in the above property is a residential property which consists of ground, first and second floors. Further the building consists of totally 15 portions as detailed hereunder: Ground floor six portions, First floor four portions, Second floor five portions. The above building is in the occupation of the plaintiff and is measuring 21 feet x 15 feet and bounded as follows: East by: Private property of Hemanth Kumar S., West by: Remaining portion of the same property, North by: Conservancy lane, South by: Remaining portion of the same property.” 3.2. It is contented in the plaint that defendant No.1 got the immovable property described in ‘A’ schedule to the plaint at a family partition by way of registered partition dated 24.03.2016. 3.3. Partition has affected in respect of all the properties belonging to their joint family. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54326 CRP No. 742 of 2025 3.4. It is further contented that Smt.Yashaswini executed a release deed on 24.03.2016 receiving sum of Rs.5,00,000/- through a registered document. 3.5. After the execution of the release deed, plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2 continued in the joint family. 3.6. It is further contented that ‘A’ schedule property was managed by defendant No.1. Rental income from ‘A’ schedule property was utilized by defendant No.1 for purchase of immovable property mentioned in ‘B’ schedule to the plaint and therefore, the said property is also joint family property and sought for suit relief. 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. 5. He maintained that ‘B’ schedule property is his self acquired property and also filed an application under - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54326 CRP No. 742 of 2025 Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC seeking for rejection of the plaint. 6. Same was opposed by the plaintiff by filing written objections. 7. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the said application by way of impugned order. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.3 is before this Court in this revision. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the relevant aspects of the matter in not considering the schedule mentioned in the partition deed and the measurements of the properties mentioned in the plaint and wrongly rejected the application, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54326 CRP No. 742 of 2025 10. None appears for the respondents. Therefore, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that plaintiff has not suppressed the registered partition deed as is sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 12. Plaint averments further reveal that after Smt.Yashaswini got released from the joint family by taking a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, the remaining members of the family continued in the joint family. 13. It is further contented that defendant No.1 was managing the joint family properties and from out of the rental income of ‘A’ schedule property, defendant No.1 purchased the ‘B’ schedule property. 14. Said aspect of the matter needs to be established by placing material evidence on record by the parties. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54326 CRP No. 742 of 2025 15. While plaintiff asserts that schedule ‘B’ item is also a joint family property, it is the contention of the revision petitioner that it is his self acquired property. 16. These disputed facts cannot be a subject matter of mini trial while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 17. Therefore, rejection of the application filed by the defendant No.3 by way of impugned order is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision. 18. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30