- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41904 CRP No. 500 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 500 OF 2018 (IO) BETWEEN: SMT. H.T. LAKSHMI DEVI W/O SHRI PUTTA HONNAIAH, PRESENT AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDENT AT NO.31, "SHREETHANA", BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT BIDADI, RAMANAGARUM DIST. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O SHRI RAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT AT NO.27, BYRASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 095. 2. SMT.PUTTALAKSHMAMMA W/O SHRI GOVINDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDENT AT BANK COLONY, DODDAKALLASANDRA, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 095. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41904 CRP No. 500 of 2018 3. SMT. NETHRAVATHI W/O SHRI HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT AT KANTHAPALYA, KAGGALIPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 095. 4. SHRI RAMAIAH S/O LATE SHRI DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDENT AT AYAPPA NABAR, BANK COLONY, DODDA KALLASANDRA KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 095. 5. SHRI. SRINIVAS S/O SHRI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDENT AT AYAPPA NAGAR BANK COLONY, DODDAKKASANDRA KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.D. BASAVANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 AND R5 - SERVED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/16 IN O.S.NO. 2849/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1/16 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a)(b) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41904 CRP No. 500 of 2018 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.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Shanmukhappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.D.Basavanna, learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The present revision petition is filed by the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.2849/2014. Defendant No.3 purchased item No.1 of the suit properties, challenging the rejection of the application vide I.A.No.1/2016 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41904 CRP No. 500 of 2018 3.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.2849/2014 with the following prayer: Wherefore the plaintiffs pray that this Hon’ble Court pass an judgment and decree against the defendants as follows: a. For partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 1/5th share by metes and bounds in the suit schedule – A and B properties; b. Declare that the alleged registered sale deed dated 10.04.1995 is executed by plaintiffs mother in favour of defendant No.3 husband late Thimmaiah is not binding on the plaintiffs in so far as the plaintiffs undivided 1/5th share is concerned; and c. To pass such other suitable orders inclusive of costs of the suit in the interest of justice and equity.” 3.2. According to the plaintiffs, suit properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 and 2. 3.3. Admittedly, defendant No.3 is the purchaser of item No.1 of the suit property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41904 CRP No. 500 of 2018 3.4. According to the defendants, Kalamma during her lifetime, having sold the property, the plaintiffs’ suit insofar as item No.1 of the suit property is per se non- maintainable, in view of the fact that Kalamma acquired the said property having inherited from her mother. It is a case where the Kalamma predeceased her mother. 4. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that Kalamma became the absolute owner of the suit property cannot be countenanced in law. Therefore, the application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by defendant No.3 came to be rejected before the Trial Court. 5. Whether at all, item No. 1 of the suit property is an absolute property of Kalamma; the sale in favour of defendant No. 3 by Kalamma was a valid sale or not cannot be decided while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) which requires recording of evidence. 6. Under such circumstances, impugned order cannot be faulted with. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41904 CRP No. 500 of 2018 7. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. However, all the defences available to the petitioner is kept open to be urged during the trial in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36