- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46655 CRP No. 564 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 564 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI KARADI ANANDAPPA, S/O KARADI BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KUMBALURU VILLAGE, MALLEBENNUR, HARIHARA TALUK-577 530, DAVANGERE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE KARADI BALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 2. SRI PARASHURAM, S/O LATE KARADI BALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 3. SMT HALAMMA @ ANUSHA, D/O LATE KARADI BALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 4. SMT CHANNAMMA @ SHRUTHI, D/O LATE KARADI BALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46655 CRP No. 564 of 2022 5. SMT SAROJA, W/O LATE GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O KUMBALURU VILLAGE, MALLEBENNUR HOBLI, HARIHARA TALUK – 577 530, DAVANGERE DISTRICT. 6. SRI KARADI SOMASHEKARAPPA, S/O KARADI BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 7. SRI KARADI BASAVARAPPA, S/O KARADI BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 8. SRI ANJANEYA D B, S/O KARADI BASAPPA, NO. 1816/19, 6TH CROSS, S S LAYOUT A BLOCK, DAVANGERE-577 002. 9. SMT ERAMMA, D/O KARADI BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 10. SMT RATHNAMMA, D/O KARADI BALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 11. SMT SHIVAGANGA, D/O KARADI BALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 12. SMT GANGAMMA, W/OLATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46655 CRP No. 564 of 2022 13. SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA, S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 14. SMT MANJAMMA, D/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 15. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA, SRI S/O LATE KARADI BALAPPA, AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, DEFENDANT NO.1 R/O KUMBALURU VILLAGE, MALLEBENNUR HOBLI, HARIHARA TALUK – 577 530, DAVANGERE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, LEARNED SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 V/O DATED 06.01.2023 NOTICE TO R6 TO R15 IS D/W) THIS CRP IS FILED UDNER SECTION 115 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2022 PASSED ON IA.NO.6 IN OS.NO.31/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46655 CRP No. 564 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Hanumanthappa A., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.P.Hegde learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs. By order dated 6/1/2023 notice to respondent Nos.6 to 15 is dispensed, as they are co- defendants in the suit. 2. Present revision petition is filed by the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.31/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Harihara, challenging the rejection of application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC by imposing cost of ₹100/- on defendant No.1. 3. Facts, in a nutshell, which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in the revision petition are the plaintiffs who filed the suit for the partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in the immovable property, which is an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.193, measuring 3 acres 35 guntas including kharab of 2 guntas comprising of 162 coconut trees and other trees, situated at Kumbaluru village, Malebennur Hobli, Harihara Taluk, Davangere district - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46655 CRP No. 564 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as suit property) and also declaring that the gift deed said to have been executed by Hanumanthappa in favour of Kenchamma did not convey right, title and interest, insofar as the shares of the plaintiffs are concerned and other consequential reliefs. 5. In the plaint, plaintiffs contended that the suit properties are the joint family and ancestral property. Hanumanthappa being the common prepositor, could not have conveyed the suit property under the gift deed in favor of the daughter Kenchamma, on the ground that she has been rendered widow at young age. 6. Suit was contested by the defendant No.1, on the ground that Hanumanthappa being the owner of the property, had every right, title and interest to convey the property, by way of a gift in favour of the Kenchanma and plaintiff with malafide intention, contented that the suit property is the joint family property, but it was the individual property of Hanumanthappa. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46655 CRP No. 564 of 2022 7. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit, interalia filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC. Plaintiff opposed the said application by filing the detailed written objection. 8. Learned trial judge after hearing the parties noted that the questions raised in the application are all matters of evidence, in as much as plaintiffs contended that it is ancestral property, whereas defendant no.1 maintained that it is self- acquired property of Hanumanthappa which cannot be decided by holding a mini trial, at the threshold. 9. The court also noted that the question of limitation of on behalf of the defendant, that in respect of the gift deed which is executed in the year 1999 is now questioned in the year 2019 and therefore, the suit is per se barred by limitation. 10. Such a contention of the defendant was also negated by the trial Court, holding that such question cannot also be decided at the threshold and dismissed the application. 11. Being aggrieved by the decision, it is the defendant No.1, who has filed this revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46655 CRP No. 564 of 2022 12. Sri.Hanumanthappa, A., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that the court below failed to note that the suit property was purchased by Hanumanthappa and therefore it is a self acquired property and therefore he has every right to execute the gift in favour of his daughter who has been rendered widow at the young age and plaintiffs have no right whatsoever, in respect of the aforesaid property. 13. He would further contend that gift deed has taken place in the year 1999 and the suit is filed in the year 2019, which is per se, barred by limitation and sought for allowing the revision petition. 14. Per contra, Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel representing the contesting respondent Nos.1 to 5 who are the plaintiffs before the trial Court contended that these questions are triable issues, for which it requires a full-fledged trial. 15. He would further contend that question of nature of the property cannot be decided at the threshold by holding a mini trial; so also, question of limitation in the case on hand is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46655 CRP No. 564 of 2022 a mixed question of law and fact. Therefore, dismissal of the application is just and proper. 16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court will perused the material on record, meticulously. 17. On such perusal of the materials on record, it is crystal clear that the plaintiffs are claiming that the suit property is the ancestral property, whereas the defendant no.1 has contented that it is the self-acquired and individual property of Hanumanthappa, who had every right to gift the property in favour of Kanchamma. 18. When there is a rival pleading with regard to particular factual aspect, it gives rise to an issue to be framed in the suit which is triable. 19. Likewise, question of limitation in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case is also a mixed question of law and facts. 20. Thus, these two issues cannot be decided by holding a mini trial while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46655 CRP No. 564 of 2022 21. Ultimately, if the defendants succeeds in establishing the plaintiffs have filed vexatious suit, defendants can very well seek for imposing suitable costs, including the exemplary costs as is contemplated under Section 35(A) CPC. 22. With that liberty, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order, do not with sufficient reasoning and happy words, has ultimately reached the proper result. Therefore, impugned order requires no interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 23. Hence, following order:- ORDER (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) All the contentions are kept open to be urged during the trial, by the defendant No.1 in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25