- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.39326 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. INDRAMMA W/O GOVINDARAJU, D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O BUKKAPATTANA, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT- 572 129. 2. YASHODA, W/O NARASIMHAIAH, D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O CHIKKASEEBI, NELAHAL POST, TUMAKUR TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT- 572 128. 3. BHAGYAMMA, W/O SHIVANNA, D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O KARIRAMANAHALLI, TUMAKUR TQ & DISTRICT-572 137 4. SUDHA C.N, W/O RAMACHANDRA, D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O BUKKAPATTANA, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 115 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 AND: 1. NAGAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA HULLI, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O CHIKKASEEBI, NELAHAL POST, TUMAKUR TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT- 572 128. 2. NARASIMHAMURTHY, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O CHIKKASEEBI, NELAHAL POST, TUMAKUR TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 128. 3. RATNAMMA, W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O CHIKKASEEBI, NELAHAL POST, TUMAKUR TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 128 4. YOGESH, S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O CHIKKASEEBI, NELAHAL POST, TUMAKUR TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 128 5. SAVITHA, D/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O CHIKKASEEBI, NELAHAL POST, TUMAKUR TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 128 6. NATARAJU, S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O CHIKKASEEBI, NELAHAL POST, TUMAKUR TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 128 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 7. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), 1ST FLOOR, MARUTHI TOWER, BESIDES SIT MAIN GATE, (NIMZ), B.H.ROAD, TUMAKUR CITY - 572 101. 8. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R.NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; SMT. V.HEMALATHA, AGA FOR R8; NOTICE TO R1, R2 & R4 TO R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TUMKUR IN O.S NO.522/2025 ON I.A. NO.6/2025 DATED 25.11.2025 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-F ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.522/2025 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.6/2025 dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 25.11.2025, whereby the said application filed by 3rd respondent - 3rd defendant under Order VI Rule 16 of CPC seeking striking of the pleadings in relation to the 3rd respondent -3rd defendant and also delete property bearing suit Item No.’d’ from the array of properties was allowed by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and learned AGA for respondent No.8 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 are dispensed with. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties comprising of 8 items of suit schedule properties. The said suit is being contested by the respondents-defendants including the defendant No.3, who inter alia contented that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share, right, title, interest or possession in the suit schedule properties. In addition thereto, the defendant No.3 filed the instant application invoking Order VI Rule 16 CPC to strike off - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 the pleadings of the plaintiff pertaining to the defendant No.3 and in respect of Item No.’d’ against defendant No.3. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiffs, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-plaintiff did not have any right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property since the Item No.’d’ of the suit schedule property had been sold by the wife of Narasimhaiah i.e., Smt. Lakshmamma and his sons, the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 for valuable consideration and since the said alienation had taken place prior to 20.12.2004 as contemplated in the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (Amendment Act) 2005, the petitioner-plaintiff would not be entitled to any share in the suit schedule property. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in the entire plaint there is no reference to the said sale deed and the said fact is pleaded by defendant No.3 in the written statement, who has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 also produced the said document in support of his defence. It is trite law that for the purpose of striking off pleadings, the essential preconditions/mandatory requirement is that the pleading should be vexatious, frivolous, scurrilous, contemptuous etc., and should warrant invocation of the extreme drastic step of striking of pleadings without permitting parties to lead evidence in support of their claims. In the instant case, the plaint of the plaintiffs reads as under: PLAINT FILED UNDER ORDER VII Rule 1 & 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF'S The above named plaintiffs, in the above case, most respectfully submits as follows:- 1. That, the address of the plaintiff for the purpose of service of suit summons and notices etc., is as shown in the cause title of the plaint and that of their Counsels are Siddalingappa P Advocates, Sandur – 583 119. And that of the Defendants for the like purposes is as shown in the cause title of the plaint. 2. Description of the suit properties: a) That, the land bearing Sy. No.51/2 measuring 00-19 gts assessed at Rs.0.42 situated at Chikkaseebi village Bellavi Hobali, in Tumakur taluka, Tumakur district. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 bounded by: East : Land of Chandraiah West : Land of Govindappa North : Land of Shivajji Rao South : Land of b. That, the land bearing Sy. No. 54 measuring 1.16 gts out of 4.09 gts assessed at Rs.3.36 situated at Chikkaseebi village Bellavi Hobali, in Tumakur taluka, Tumakur district. bounded by: East : Land of Poutry Farm West : Land of Shivajji Rao North : Land of Gundaiah South : Road c. That, the land bearing Sy. No.31/4 measuring 1.00 acre assessed at Rs. 0.87 situated at Chikkaseebi village Bellavi Hobali, in Tumakur taluka, Tumakur district. bounded by: East : School West : Village North : Land of Mahadevaiah South : Land of Shivamma d. That, the land bearing Sy. No.98 measuring 3.20 gts assessed at Rs.1.19 situated at Chikkaseebi village Bellavi Hobali, in Tumakur taluka, Tumakur district. bounded by: East : Land of Gopal - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 West : Land of Nagamma Devi North : Land of Dasappa South : Land of Kambayya e. That, the land bearing Sy. No.31/3 measuring 1.00 acre assessed at Rs.0.87 situated at Chikkaseebi village Bellavi Hobali, in Tumakur taluka, Tumakur district. bounded by: East : School West : Village North : Land of Mahadevaiah South : Land of Shivamma f. That, the land bearing Sy. No.31/5 measuring 00-12 gts assessed at Rs.0.27 situated at Chikkaseebi village Bellavi Hobali, in Tumakur taluka, Tumakur district. bounded by: East : Land of Kadarappa West : Land of Doddaiah North : Land of Kadarappa South : Land of Doddaiah g. That, the land bearing Sy. No.31/6 measuring 00-26 gts assessed at Rs.0.57 situated at Chikkaseebi village Bellavi Hobali, in Tumakur taluka, Tumakur district. bounded by: East : Land of Kadarappa West : Land of Doddaiah North : Land of Kadarappa South : Land of Doddaiah - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 h. That, the land bearing Sy. No.97/3 measuring 00-28 gts assessed at Rs.0.82 situated at Chikkaseebi village Bellavi Hobali, in Tumakur taluka, Tumakur district. bounded by: East : Land of Chandraiah West : Land of Dasappa North : Land of Kattappa South : Land of Kodanda (These properties are hereinafter referred to as 'suit properties'.) 3. That, the genealogy of the family of the plaintiff & Defendant is as under:- Zonology NARASIMHAIAH (x) (Propositus) Smt. Lakshamma (wife) (x) 1. Narayanappa (x) 2. Narasimhamurthy (D-2) Nagamma(75 years) (D-1) Jayalalshamma Children 1. Indramma (P-1) 2. Yashoda (P-2) 3. Bhagyamma (P-3) 4. Sudha (P-4) (x) Denotes the person dead. (P) Denotes the person Plaintiff. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 (D) Denotes the person defendant. That the plaintiffs and defendants family Propositus by name Narasimhaiah, the Narasimhaiah and his wife Lakshmamma are died living behind 2 sons by name 1. Narayanappa, 2. Narasimhamurthy. the first son and Narayanappa was died living behind his wife by name Nagamma and 4 daughters as his legal hairs, said Nagamma made party to the suit as defendant No.1 herein, 2nd son Narasimhamurthy made a party to the suit as defendant No.2. The plaintiff No.1 to 4 are daughters of the defendant No.1 and grand daughters of Propositus by name Narasimhaiah. The defendant No.3 to 7 are necessary party of the suit. The above suit land is previously standing in name deceased Narasimhaiah. 5. That, the one Narasimhaiah who is the father of the defendant No.2 and father in law of the defendant No.1 the plaintiff No.1 to 4 of the grand daughters of the above said Narasimhaiah. During his life time he was owning the suit properties were his ancestral and joint family properties. The plaintiff No.1 to 4 and defendant No.1 and 2 have constituted Hindu Undivided joint family. 6. That, the suit properties are joint family and ancestral properties of Plaintiffs and Defendant 1 to 2 and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The defendant No.1 and 2 are not absolute owner of the suit properties. The plaintiffs and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 defendant No.1 to 2 have got their legitimate share in the suit properties. 7. Even to this day there was no partition between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 2 by metes and bounded in the suit properties. The defendant No.1 and 2 are taking the undue advantages of their name in revenue records the defendant No.1 and 2 transfer the suit property item no.d to defendant No.3 without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs to defeat and defraud plaintiffs share. Recently it came to the plaintiffs knowledge that, the defendant No.1 and 2 transfer the suit property item no.c to defendant No.4 to 6 without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs to defeat and defraud plaintiffs share The defendant No.1 and 2 are have no independent right to transfer the said suit property to defendant No.4 to 6. The defendant No.4 to 6 are will not get any right through the alleged transfer. The said alleged transfer is illegal and without the knowledge and consent of plaintiffs and not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit properties are not separate and self acquired properties of the defendant No.1 and 2. A separate application is also filed to restrain the defendant No.1 to 6 from the alienating the suit properties to anybody in any manner. 8. The plaintiff further submitted that, the suit properties item No.2 c to e has been acquired by the defendant No.7 for purpose of establishment of Industrial are, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 and now defendant No.1 to 6 are in collussion with defendant No.7 are arranging to withdraw the award amount, awarded towards land and trees standing in the suit properties, 3 months back the plaintiffs sought for their share in the said award amount, but the defendants have jointly refused to pay any share in the award amount, but they have no any exclusive legal rights, title to receive the said award amount, however the defendants are try arranging to withdraw the said amount, hence this suit for several reliefs. 9. CAUSE OF ACTION The plaintiffs orally demanded and requested the defendant No.1 to 3 to effect partition by metes and bounds and allot her legitimate share in the suit properties on 10.02.2025, and subsequently the defendants trying to draw the compensation award amount from the defendant No.7 since one month at Chikkaseebi village, Ballavi Hobli, Tumakur Taluk, within the Jurisdiction of their Hon'ble court. Hence the plaintiff is filing this suit for partition and separate possession in the suit properties by metes and bounds. 10. JURISDICTION:- That, the suit properties situated with the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court and the parties to the suit are also residing within the jurisdiction. Hence, this Hon'ble court has got jurisdiction to try this suit. 11. COURT FEE & SUIT VALUATION: That, the Market value of suit lands is Rs.4,15,85,000/- (which is - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 calculated at 12 ½ of the land revenue Rs.8.37 x 12 ½ = 104.62 which is less than Rs.1000/-). The Plaintiff's sought for the relief of the partition of their half share in the suit properties. Hence, the maximum court fee of Rs.200/- is paid as per section 35(2) of K.C.F. & S.V. Act on Rs.2,07,92,500/-. The same is proper and sufficient. That, for the purpose of jurisdiction and advocates fee suit is valued Rs.4,15,85,000/-. PRAYER: Hence, it is humbly prayed to decree the suit of the plaintiff as under:- i. To allotting plaintiff legitimate share in the suit property. ii. Appoint a court commissioner to effect the partition by metes and bounds in the suit property and to put the plaintiff in possession of her share. iii. To declare that, alleged transactions by the defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 to 6 are not binding on the plaintiffs. iv. To award costs of suit. V. To grant any other equitable reliefs which the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 5. As can be seen from the averments made in the plaint, none of the averments can be said to be scurrilous, vexatious, frivolous, contemptuous etc., so as to enable/warrant invocation of Order VI Rule 16 CPC and merely because the defendant No.3 has put forth various contentions regarding maintainability of the suit as against defendant No.3, the said defence put forth by the defendant No.3 in the written statement and the contentions urged in the affidavit in support of the application could not have been made the basis by the trial Court to strike off the pleading of the plaintiff without permitting the petitioner-plaintiff to establish his claim by adducing oral and documentary evidence. In other words, the instant case does not disclose circumstances which would warrant invocation of Order VI Rule 16 CPC so as to strike out the pleadings of the plaintiff on this ground. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not only contrary to the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 16 CPC, but also has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. In the result, I pass the following: - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7500 WP No. 39326 of 2025 ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 25.11.2025 on I.A.No.6/2025 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, till the next date of hearing. iii) I.A.No.6/2025 under Order VI Rule 16 of CPC filed by the respondent is disposed of leaving open all contentions urged by defendant No.3 to be put forth in the suit before the trial Court. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of all parties to file appropriate interlocutory applications, which shall be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20