- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7321 WP No. 20991 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.20991 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. JAGADISH NARAYAN, S/O LATE NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO.399, 1ST CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. VENKATESH SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LEELAVATHI, W/O SRI. CHIKKA ARASU, D/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A NO.1598, BASAVANAGUDI MAIN ROAD, 19TH CROSS, KYATHAMARANAHALLI, MYSURU – 570 019. 2. SMT. SUJATHA, W/O SRI. RAMESH, D/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.CS 24, BALEPET MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002. 3. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, W/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, 4. SRI. KUMARA, S/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7321 WP No. 20991 of 2025 5. SRI. SHIVARAMU, S/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 6. SRI. PARAMESH, S/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 7. SRI. KRISHNA, S/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 8. SRI. SHIVA, S/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 9. SMT. JYOTHI D/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 10. SMT. NAGAMANI D/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 10 RESIDENTS OF H. KODIHALLI VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA – 571 445. 11. SRI. S. RAMESH, S/O SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A NO.555, AVENUE ROAD, ATTIBELE VILLAGE & HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU – 562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETHA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. PRABHU KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 TO R11 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2025 PASSED IN IA NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER XII - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7321 WP No. 20991 of 2025 RULE 6 OF CPC BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.423/2015 BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M BY ISSUING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR TO ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT WOULD DEEM IT FIT TO BE GRANTED IN THE LIGHTS OF THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE CASE. THIS WRIT 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 defendant No.11 in O.S.No.423/2015 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Srirangapattana Taluk, is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.5 whereby the said application filed by the petitioner-defendant No.11 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule properties filed by the plaintiffs, the petitioner-defendant No.11 filed the instant application seeking - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7321 WP No. 20991 of 2025 dismissal of the suit in respect of Item No.1 on the ground that the plaintiffs had admitted that they do not have any right over the suit schedule property in para 4 of the plaint. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiffs, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.5 on the ground that an earlier identical application-I.A.No.3 had been dismissed by the Trial Court itself. Aggrieved by the impugned order dismissing I.A.No.5, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the plaint reads as under: “Application Under Order 7 Rule 1 of C.P.C. The plaintiff submits as follows: 1. The address of the parties is correct as given in the cause title to the plaint. The address of the plaintiff's counsel is Sri N.K.Shivaramu, Advocate, Srirangapatna. 2. The defendants no. 3 to 9 and plaintiffs are the children of the defendants 1 and 2. 3. One Kullaningaiah and Devamma had three sons by name Boraiah, Javaraiah and Nagaraju. The said Kullaningaiah during his life time was cultivating the land measuring about 5 acres 22 guntas in sy.no 68 of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7321 WP No. 20991 of 2025 chinnayakanahalli village, k.shettahalli hobli, srirangapatna taluk, as tenant under J.R.Rajappa smt Indiramma 4. The suit schedule property measuring 2-01 guntas of land in sy no 68/A, which is part and parcel of sy no. 68 is the ancestral and joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 9 are in joint possession of the same. In view of the application submitted by the 1st defendant Nagaraju and his brother Boraiah, after death of Kullaningaiah, the land tribunal of srirangapatna has registered the occupancy rights in the name of the 1st defendant in LRT No 260/77 dated 6-11-1978 as such the 1st defendant continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interruption from any quarters along with plaintiffs and defendants from No 2 to 9 as such, the revenue records in respect of the suit property is entered is continuing in the name of first defendant. 5. The plaintiffs and defendants No.8 and 9 are the daughters and the defendants No 3 to 7 are the daughters and the defendants No 3 to 7 are the sons of defendants No 1 and 2. 6. After the marriage the 1st plaintiff is residing at mysuru city with her husband and children and 2nd plaintiff is residing at Bengaluru city with her husband and children. But the plaintiffs are continued as joint family members along with defendants 1 to 9 having attended all the functions and ceremonies conducted by defendants No 1 and 2 also visiting often and often to their parents house attending all the functions and join together in taking food as such the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7321 WP No. 20991 of 2025 plaintiffs are entitled for equal share on the suit schedule properties. According to the Hindu amendment succession act of 2005. 7. Taking undue advantage that the plaintiff are residing, at Mysuru and Bengaluru city, the defendants No 1 to 9 in order to deny and defraud the share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties have concocted some nominal documents and revenue records in the name of the defendant no 10 including right of share of the plaintiffs for which the defendants are not entitled to do so. 8. As usual the plaintiffs have come to the ganjam, srirangapatna town, to see their parents, sisters and brothers and the plaintiffs came to know that the landed property belongs to joint family has been illegally transferred to the name of defendant no.10 as such the plaintiffs have approached the defendants 1 to 9 to carved out their legal share i.e.2/10 share in the suit schedule properties and to handover separate possession of the same to the plaintiffs. But the 1st defendant with the support of remaining defendants has given evasive reply and directed the plaintiffs to approach the court of law for partition. 9. After coming to know above facts the plaintiffs have obtain copies of revenue records on 25-5-2015 and found the name of 10th defendant is entered in the records which is false and concocted. Just to deprive right of the plaintiffs. As such if any false and concocted records stand in the name of the 10th defendant. it is not binding on the plaintiffs share. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7321 WP No. 20991 of 2025 10. For the above reasons the plaintiffs have filed the above suit seeking a decree for partition and separate possession of 2/10 share by metes and bounds with mesne profit in respect of suit schedule item No 1 and 2 11. The plaintiffs are entitled for 2/10 share in the suit schedule property and defendants are bound to handover separate possession of the same with mesne profits. 12. Cause of action for the suit has arose since 15 days and on 25-5-2015 and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this honorable court at chinnayakanahalli village, k.shettahalli hobli, srirangapatna taluk. 13. Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as per the is paid on the valvation slip attached necessary court fee of Rs plaint. 14. PRAYER FOR JUDGEMENT AND DECREE: For the above reasons and facts the plaintiffs pray that the Honorable court be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff as against the defendants a. For partition and separate possession of their 2/20 share in the suit schedule properties. b. Directing the defendants to hand over deparate possession of 2/10 share in the schedule properties to the plaintiffs c. An equity to mesne profits payable by defendants to plaintiffs from the date of the suit till delivery of possession of their in the suit - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7321 WP No. 20991 of 2025 schedule properties after division of the same by metes and bounds. d. For court costs with such other reliefs as the honorable court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE 1) The landed property measuring 2 acres 01 guntas, assessed at Rs. 3-00 bearing old Sy.No 68 and new Sy No 68/A situated at chinnayakanahalli village, k.shettahalli hobli, srirangapatna taluk, Mandya district bounded on the East by - Land of Devappa and Mari Venkataiah West by - Land belongs to Boraiah in Sy No 68 North by - Road and South by - Land of narayanagowda S/O Boraiah 2) Mangaluru tiled house measuring East-West 20 feet, North-South 30 feet, situated at Arcot street, ganjam, Srirangapatna town, bounded on the East by - Water tank West by - Vacant space North by - Road and Vacant space South by - House of Munna. 5. A careful perusal of the plaint averments will clearly indicate that the same do not contain any admission nor constitute - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7321 WP No. 20991 of 2025 any ground so as to enable invocation of Order XII Rule 6 CPC and to dismiss the suit without providing an opportunity to the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence. It is well settled that before any Court or authority acts upon any admission, the alleged admission should be clear, certain, definite and unequivocal, unambiguous, etc., and in the absence of any such admission in the plaint, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in not invoking Order XII Rule 6 CPC and by directing the parties to adjudicate their rival claims after a full-fledged trial. 6. Under these circumstances, upon reconsideration, re- evaluation and re-appreciation of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present petition in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477 and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38