- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18109 CRP No. 100110 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEDGE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100110 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MAINUSAB S/O. MALLIKSAB DHANNUR @ RONAD, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. #1200/2, SANGAMESHWAR ONI, WARD NO.4, HUNGUND, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587118. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSHKUMAR G. RAMPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOULASAB S/O. MALLIKSAB DHANNUR @ RONAD, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO.2, DIVISION 4, SANGAMESHWAR ONI, HUNGUND, TQ: HUNGUND, DT: BAGALKOT-587118. 2. ABDULFARUK S/O. MOULASAB DHANNUR @ RONAD, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO.2, DIVISION 4, SANGAMESHWAR ONI, HUNGUND, TQ: HUNGUND, DT: BAGALKOT-587118. 3. G.N. KIRANKUMAR S/O. Y. NAGARAJ, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUNJUR VILLAGE, VARTUR HOBLI, TQ: BANGALORE EAST, DT: BANGLORE CITY-560087. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS SERVED) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.19 16:09:59 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18109 CRP No. 100110 of 2025 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO THE APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAY THAT HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUNGUND IN O.S.NO.60/2025 DATED 24.09.2025 ON I.A.NO.II BY ALLOWING THE PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 24.09.2025 rejecting the petitioner's application to reject the plaint. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.60/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hungund. The first prayer is to grant a decree for partition of 2/3 share in the suit 'B' property. The second prayer is to declare that gift deed dated 26.06.2020 as not binding on the plaintiff. The third prayer is to declare the sale deed dated 08.12.2021 as not binding on the plaintiff. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18109 CRP No. 100110 of 2025 3. The plaintiff has stated that the cause of action has arisen in the month of June, 2020 when the father of the 1st plaintiff gifted the suit property in favour of 1st defendant and also on 18.08.2024 when the father of plaintiff No.1 died and also on 16.01.2025 when O.S.No.84/2020 was withdrawn when the impleading application filed by plaintiff No.1 was pending in the said suit. 4. Admittedly, O.S.No.84/2020 was the suit filed by another brother of plaintiff No.1 against father of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the parties viz., plaintiff and defendant No.1 being Mohammedans, there cannot be any birth right in the property, as such, the suit filed by plaintiff No.1 seeking right in the property of his father is not maintainable. It is also urged as the 1st plaintiff is still alive, the suit filed by plaintiff No.2 - his son is not maintainable. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18109 CRP No. 100110 of 2025 6. In addition to that it is urged that the suit is not filed within three years from the date of the gift. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondents would defend the impugned order. 8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 9. It is indeed true that among Mohammandans there is no inheritance of property soon after the birth and the right accrues only after the demise of the holder of the property. The gift deed was executed by father of plaintiff No.1 in the year 2020. Plaintiffs are not seeking right by reason of birth in the family. However, in the plaint it is averred that the suit property is jointly developed by the plaintiffs along with their father. On this basis, the plaintiffs are claiming right over the property. 10. Whether the property is jointly developed by the plaintiffs along with their father or not is a question of fact, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18109 CRP No. 100110 of 2025 which has to be decided after considering the evidence to be led by the parties before the Trial Court. 11. The contention of the plaintiffs that no documents are produced by the defendants to show that the property belongs to them cannot be accepted at this stage. The reason is that evidence on this aspect is not yet adduced. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nikhila Divyang Mehta And Another vs Hitesh P. Sanghvi And Others1 to contend that the suit is filed three years after the period of limitation and is time barred. 13. The Court has considered the said judgment. In the said case, the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration and injunction on the basis of the Will and the Codicil. It is averred in the plaint that the cause of action arose on 04.02.2014, 20.09.2014 and on 21.10.2014. The challenge 1 2025 INSC 485 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18109 CRP No. 100110 of 2025 to the Codicil is made in the year 2018 i.e., 4 years after the cause of action arose as shown in the plaint. As already noticed the suit is one for declaration and injunction and therefore, the Court has come to the conclusion that the suit is time barred. 14. However, in the instant case though it is averred that the cause of action arose in the year 2020 and the suit is filed in the year 2025, it has to be noticed that the plaintiffs are seeking the relief of partition. Plaintiffs are also contending that the gift deed and sale deed executed is in respect of their share are not binding. In other words, the right of claim over the properties is on the premise that the properties are jointly acquired and developed by them. Thus, even without challenging the sale deed and the gift deed, if the plaintiffs are able to establish that they have a share in the properties, then the suit has to be decreed. In addition for partition and possession, period of limitation would be 12 years and not 3 years. This being the position, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18109 CRP No. 100110 of 2025 12 years from the date when the plaintiffs are ousted. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application seeking rejection of the plaint. 15. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 16. The observations made in the order should not be construed as having opined anything in favour of the plaintiffs or against the defendant on merits. 17. All contentions are left open. 18. All contentions have to be established by leading evidence. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 52