- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4569-DB RFA No. 1936 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1936 OF 2017 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT RAMAKKA D/O LATE CHANNAPPA, W/O RAJA, AGE 52 YEARS, R/O ALLALASANDRA VILLAGE, TUBAGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HALESHA R.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI NAGAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT YARTHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110. 2. SMT CHANNAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT SUNAGATTA VILLAGE, TUBAGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203. 3. SMT RAMAKKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4569-DB RFA No. 1936 of 2017 D/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABLUT 58 YEARS, R/AT YARTHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110. 4. SRI BANCHEGOWDA S/O LATE MUNISHAMIGOWDA, R/AT GODLUMUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.A.SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED:22.12.2021) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.6 IN O.S.NO.212/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 R.W SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4569-DB RFA No. 1936 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC),1908 impugning the order dated 01.03.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in O.S.No.212/2014 whereby the plaint of the appellant/plaintiff has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition of the schedule property which was alienated way back on 15.10.2003 by a registered sale deed by defendant No.1 and his sons. The sale deed was executed by the defendants much prior to 20.12.2004. i.e., amendment under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005. The plaintiff is the married daughter of Sri Channappa who died before filing this suit. 3. The said sale deed was never challenged by Sri Channappa during his life time. Now, once the property got alienated before 20.12.2004, the sale deed cannot be declared illegal in view of the proviso to Sub Section 1 of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 which reads as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4569-DB RFA No. 1936 of 2017 "6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. (1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,— (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004. 4. Unless the sale deed dated 15.10.2003 is cancelled the question of partition of the suit schedule property would not arise. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Trial Court has concluded that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4569-DB RFA No. 1936 of 2017 of partition of the suit schedule property which stood alienated in favour of defendant No.4 prior to 20.12.2004. 5. Considering the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as well as the averments of the plaint, we are of the view that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint. It does not require to be interfered by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. I.A.No.1/2025 for impleading applicants is rejected. All pending applications are closed. (D K SINGH) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA