- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18636 CRP No. 100111 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100111 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. SIDDAPPA @ SHRIKANT S/O YALLAPPA WATAVATI, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED JUDICIAL OFFICER, CURRENT R/O. 22, 7TH ‘C’ CROSS, JAKKASANDRA EXTENSION, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. 3. 4. CHANDRAVVA W/O. BASAPPA DHAVALESHWAR, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O. CHIMMAD, TQ: RABKAVI–BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT–587 312. MAHADEV S/O. YALLAPPA WATAVATI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. VENKATAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 310. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. PARAPPA DHAVALESHWAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIMMAD, TQ: RABKAVI–BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT–587 312. SHANKAREPPA S/O. YALLAPPA WATAVATI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. VENKATAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 310. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18636 CRP No. 100111 of 2025 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. SHOBHA W/O. LAKKAPPA WATAVATI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KADRAKOPPA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 102. PRAVEEN S/O. LAKKAPPA WATAVATI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KADRAKOPPA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 102. SMT. SUMITRA W/O. BEERAPPA PUJERI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. VENKATAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 310. KALMESH S/O. YALLAPPA WATAVATI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. VENKATAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 310. RAMCHANDRA S/O. YALLAPPA WATAVATI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. VENKATAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 310. NOW R/O. C/O. SACHIN R. WATAVATI, PRABHA SUGAR FACTORY, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 218. MAHANANDA D/O. NARAYAN WATAVATI @ W/O. MALLAPPA TARAVARI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SIDDESHWAR CIRCLE ROAD, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 116. BASAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA HOLI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ARALIMATTI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 310. TIPPANNA S/O. MALLAPPA HOLI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ARALIMATTI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 310. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18636 CRP No. 100111 of 2025 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. MAHALINGAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA HOLI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ARALIMATTI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 310. KEMPAVVA W/O. BASAPPA HOLI, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S., RAMAPPA S/O. BASAPPA BENDAWAD, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, ARALIMATTI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 310. VITTAL S/O. BASAPPA BENDAWAD, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, ARALIMATTI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 310. SHIVANAND S/O. MALLAPPA HOLI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ARALIMATTI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 310. BALAPPA S/O. TIPPANNA KHANAPPANAVAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ARALIMATTI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 310. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANAND L. SANDRIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R16 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 06.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK IN O.S. NO.795/2022 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(A) AND (D) OF C.P.C. IN I.A. NO.VII, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18636 CRP No. 100111 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 06.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.795/2022 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak1. 3. The Trial Court rejected I.A.No.VII filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082. 4. The petitioner contends that the suit filed in the year 2022 seeking partition is not tenable. The prayer reads as under: 1. Call for records; 2. Allow this petition and set aside order dated: 06/06/2025 passed by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, in O.S.No.795/2022, and allow the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of C.P.C. in I.A.No.VII, in the interest of justice and equity. 1 For short, ‘Trial Court’ 2 For short, ‘Code’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18636 CRP No. 100111 of 2025 3. Any other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may please be granted in favour of the petitioner. 5. The plaintiff has not sought any specific relief challenging the compromise decree entered into by her father in O.S.No.131/1979, which was settled on 12.01.1981. However, in paragraph No.13 of the plaint, reference is made to the said decree, and the plaintiff contends that the said decree has not been acted upon and is illegal and not binding upon the share of the plaintiff. 6. The genealogy shown by the plaintiff is as under: Yallappa (Dead) =Krishnavva (1st wife died) =Sayavva (2nd wife died) Chandravva Mahadev Siddappa Shankareppa sumitra (Plff) (D-1) (D-3) (D-4) (D-7) Ramchandra Laxmibai Sarojini Lakkappa Kalmesh (D-9) (D-2) (died issueless) (died) (D-8) =Shobha (D-5) Praveen (D-6) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18636 CRP No. 100111 of 2025 7. Yallappa admittedly was the propositus. He had two wives, namely Krishnavva and Sayavva. The plaintiff claims that Krishnavva was the first wife and that she is the daughter born from the first wife. Defendant No.9, Ramchandra, is stated to be the son of the first wife, Krishnavva. The remaining parties shown in the genealogy are stated to be the children of Sayavva. 8. Defendant No.3, who claims to have purchased the property from defendant No.9, has filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the premise that the suit is barred by time. 9. The admitted factual position is Yallappa was the propositus and the owner of the properties. It is stated that the properties were joint family properties in the hands of Yallappa. It is also noticed a decree was passed in O.S.No.131/1979. It is now a settled position of law that, in addition to the averments made in the plaint, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the Court can also look into the documents referred to in the plaint. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18636 CRP No. 100111 of 2025 10. Since the decree in O.S.No.131/1979 is referred to in the plaint, the Court has looked into the said decree. The decree would indicate that the properties in the hands of Yallappa were partitioned among Yallappa, his first wife Krishnavva, their son Ramchandra, and remaining children born through Sayavva. The plaintiff was not a party to the said proceedings. The question that arises is whether the plaintiff was a necessary party to those proceedings. 11. Admittedly, at the time when the decree was passed, the plaintiff’s father, Yallappa, was alive. As per the law prevailing then, a daughter was not entitled to a share in the joint family properties during the lifetime of her father and would acquire a right only after his demise. Subsequently, the law namely Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 19563 is amended, and it has been interpreted that the amended provision of Section 6 of Act of 1956, is having a retrospective effect. However, there is a rider under Section 6 as amended in 2005, namely, that where a partition had taken place in the family prior 3 For short, ‘Act of 1956’ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18636 CRP No. 100111 of 2025 to 20.12.2004, such daughters would not be entitled to claim equal share. 12. This being the position, the plaintiff, Chandravva, was not a sharer at the time the decree was passed in on 12.01.1981. Consequently, the plaintiff does not get any right to seek partition in respect of all the properties covered under the decree passed in O.S.No.131/1979. However, the property allotted to the share of Yallappa, if he has died intestate, the plaintiff can certainly seek share in the said properties. 13. For the aforementioned reason, the Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application is erroneous. The suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff cannot seek share in the property, which is partitioned in 1981, when the father was alive. The amended Section 6 of Act of 1956 does not enable the plaintiff to seek share in the joint family property. 14. Hence, the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18636 CRP No. 100111 of 2025 ORDER a) The petition is allowed. b) The plaint in O.S.No.795/2022 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, is rejected. c) The order dated 06.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.795/2022 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, is set aside. d) However, the plaintiff is at liberty to institute a suit in respect of the properties allotted to the share of Yallappa, in case Yallappa has died intestate, in such suit, the legal heirs of Yallappa will be made as parties. e) If such suit is filed same shall be considered in accordance with law. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 99