- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52182 CRP No. 21 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 21 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. PARVATHAMMA W/O SHIVANNA @ SHIVANNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. MAHADEVI D/O SHIVANNA @ SHIVANNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3. VENKATESH S/O SHIVANNA @ SHIVANNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 4. CHAAYA W/O SHIVANNA @ SHIVANNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT MUKANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU-571105 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. U VINAY RAGHAVENDRA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANJU S/O SHIVANNA @ SHIVANNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2. KRISHNA BOVI S/O SHIVANNA @ SHIVANNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52182 CRP No. 21 of 2024 3. SHIVANNA @ SHIVANNA BHOVI S/O LATE CHANNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT MUKANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU-571105. …RESPONDENTS (R1 MANJU, SERVED: R2 KRISHNA BOVI, SERVED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON IA NO.2 DATED: 14.12.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO.210/2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUNSUR AND ALLOW THIS PETITION WITH COSTS AND ETC. 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 Vinay Raghavendra. Respondents are served and unrepresented. 2. A suit for partition came to be filed in OS No.210/2022 by the plaintiffs claiming that they are the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52182 CRP No. 21 of 2024 children of second wife of the first defendant (who is no more), on the ground that they are having equal share in the suit properties. 3. Suit was opposed by the revision petitioners by filing the written statement and also an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC that such a suit is not maintainable in the lifetime of the father. 4. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 also contented that frame of the suit itself is wrong inasmuch as defendant No.1 has got the property at a partition and defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are unnecessary parties even assuming that the plaintiffs have got a legitimate right to seek partition as against defendant No. 1. 5. It is also contended that defendant No.1 has sold his share of the property in favour of defendant No. 2 in lieu of her maintenance and therefore no relief can be granted in the suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52182 CRP No. 21 of 2024 6. Learned trial judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are before this Court in this revision. 7. Having heard the arguments of counsel for petitioner, this Court noted that first defendant is no more as per the memo filed by the counsel for revision petitioners. 8. Therefore, first embargo that was pleaded before the trial Court in so far as the maintainability of suit stands quelled automatically. 9. In regard to the second contention that defendant No.1 has already sold his share of the property which he has obtained at a partition and therefore no property is available for partition is a matter of fact that needs to be adjudicated by the trial Court. At any rate, plaintiffs cannot claim right, title and interest from their uncles in view of the authoritative principles of law enunciated by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52182 CRP No. 21 of 2024 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of REVANASIDAPPA & ANOTHER vs. MALLIKARJUN AND OTHERS reported in (2023) 10 SCC 1 and in the case of KENCHEGOWDA vs. K.V.KRISHNAPPA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2008 Kar.3453. 10. Therefore, whatever the right, title and interest that the plaintiffs are claiming, is only in respect of the share of the first defendant. If the first defendant has already sold the property in favour of the second defendant in lieu of maintenance, and the same is established by the defendants with proper material evidence, automatically the suit would be dismissed. 11. Such a mini trial cannot be held while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the dismissal of the application filed by the revision petitioner is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision. 12. Hence, following order: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52182 CRP No. 21 of 2024 ORDER (i) Revision petition dismissed. (ii) All the contentions that are available to the defendants are kept open to be heard, in accordance with law, in the pending trial. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45