- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5239 RFA No. 1978 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1978 OF 2025 (PAR/DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.NAGARJUNA S/O, MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. SMT.PRAMILA D/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT MALLIMAKANAPURA VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.NARENDRA S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.MARIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNINAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS MALLIMAKANAPURA VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5239 RFA No. 1978 of 2025 2. SRI.AMJAD HUSSAIN S/O ABDUL KADHAR AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 3. SMT.SHAHINA BEGUM W/O AMJAD HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 4. SRI.SAJID HUSSAIN S/O ABDUL KADHAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 5. SMT.SHAMIUNNISA W/O SAJID HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SIR.M.VISVESHWARAIAH LAYOUT HOSAKOTE TOWN HOSAKOTE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 6. SRI.MOHAMMED TANVEER S/O C.M.MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.15, ALFRED STREET RICHMOND TOWN BANGALORE -560025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.NARAYAN MAYYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.6) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.06.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1/2023 IN OS NO.2493/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE, ALLOWING THE IA NO.1/2023 FILED UNDER ORDER - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5239 RFA No. 1978 of 2025 7 RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the order dated 04.06.2025 passed in O.S.No.2493/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote on an application - I.A.No.1/2023 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, wherein the plaint is rejected by the Trial Court. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The genealogical tree of the family reads as under; Mariyappa (dead) Gowramma (wife) (72 years) | ________________________________________ | | Nagarjuna (49 Yrs) Pramila (38 Yrs) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5239 RFA No. 1978 of 2025 4. Brief facts leading to the case are as under; The plaintiffs, who are the children of one Mariyappa, have instituted a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.2493/2022 (Old No.1323/2016). In addition to seeking their respective shares in the suit schedule properties, the plaintiffs have also sought a formal declaration that the registered sale deed dated 18.08.1995 executed by their father Mariyappa in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 5 is not binding on their legitimate share. Consequentially, they have also sought a declaration that the subsequent registered sale deed dated 08.01.2007 executed by defendant Nos.4 and 5 in favour of defendant No.6 is also not binding on them. 5. Defendant No.6, on service of summons, entered appearance and filed a written statement. He also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5239 RFA No. 1978 of 2025 6. The plaintiffs opposed the said application by filing their statement of objections. 7. The learned Trial Judge, on an examination of the pleadings and the reliefs sought, proceeded to allow the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC and rejected the plaint holding that the alienations effected by Mariyappa are protected under the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore, the suit as framed is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection of plaint, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.6 and has carefully perused the material placed on record. 9. On the basis of the rival submissions, the following points arise for consideration: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5239 RFA No. 1978 of 2025 (i) Whether the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC calls for interference by this Court? (ii) What order? Findings on point No.(i) :- 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court has meticulously examined the averments made in the plaint. On a careful reading of the plaint, two crucial aspects emerge for consideration. In order to appreciate the controversy in proper perspective, this Court deems it appropriate to advert to the relevant pleadings. Accordingly, paragraphs 5 to 7 of the plaint are extracted hereinbelow, which read thus: "5. ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ fÉè, ºÉƸÀPÉÆÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½, ZÉÆüÀ¥Àà£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 91/3 «¹ÛÃtð 1 JPÀgÉ 03 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¦vÁæfðvÀ ¸ÀévÁÛVzÀÄÝ, ªÁ¢UÀ¼À vÁvÀ£ÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ vÀAzÉAiÀiÁzÀ ªÀÄĤ£ÁUÀ¥Àà gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀévÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÁªÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄĤ£ÁUÀ¥Àà £ÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ¼ÀªÁj £ËPÀj ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÁgÀt zÁªÀ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ E£ÁA DV ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C£ÀAvÀgÀ zÁªÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5239 RFA No. 1978 of 2025 ±ÁAwAiÀÄÄvÀ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄĤ£ÁUÀ¥Àà C£ÀĨsÀ«¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj zÁªÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ Dgï.Dgï.£ÀA.402 gÀAvÉ ªÀÄĤ£ÁUÀ¥Àà £ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄĤ£ÁUÀ¥Àà £ÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀªÀw £ÀAvÀgÀ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ zÁªÀ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß LºÉZï.¹.111/1981-82 gÀAvÉ ¥ÀªÀwSÁvÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄ, C£ÀAvÀgÀ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ MmÁÖV C£ÀĨsÀ«¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÀ. ¸ÀzÀj zÁªÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¦vÁæfðvÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MlÄÖPÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀévÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÁ¢UÀ¼À vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ DzÀ L.ºÉZï.¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À vÁvÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ DVgÀĪÀ Dgï.Dgï. ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ zÀÈrÃPÀÈvÀ £ÀPÀ®UÀ¼À£ÀÄß WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CªÀUÀºÀ£ÉUÁV ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÁVzÉ. 6. ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ EwÛÃZÉUÉ zÁªÀ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ¸ÀéZÀÒUÉƽ¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ 6£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ UÀÄA¥ÀÅPÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ CwPÀæªÀÄ ¥ÀæªÉñÀªÀiÁr §AzÀÄ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ zÁªÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ¸ÀéZÀÒUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÉzÀÄ zÁªÀ ¸ÀéwÛ¤AzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁPÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DUÀ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ 6£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ KPÉ zÁªÀ¸ÀéwÛ¤AzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁPÀÄwÛ¢ÝgÁ JA§ÄzÁV ¥Àæ²ß¹zÁUÀ 6£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ F zÁªÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁgÁlªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ 6£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C£ÀAvÀgÀ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ 6£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁªÀ ¸ÀéwÛ¤AzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C£ÀAvÀgÀ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉƸÀPÉÆÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀbÉÃjUÉ §AzÀÄ zÁªÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ zÁRÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀÁV ªÀiÁgÁlªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢zÀÄÝ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÀAiÀÄ©üÃvÀUÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ 1 ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §gÀĪÀAvÀºÀ ¥Á®£ÀÄßPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉýzÁUÀ ¤gÁPÀj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5239 RFA No. 1978 of 2025 7. ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ zÁRÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß EwÛÃZÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀÁV zÁªÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ 2 jAzÀ 5£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-18-08-1995 gÀAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÀt PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå.1818/95-96 gÀAvÉ PÀæAiÀĪÁVzÀÄÝ, C£ÀAvÀgÀ 4ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ 6£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-08-01-2007 gÀAzÀÄ ¹.r.£ÀA.83, £ÉÆÃAzÀt PÀæAiÀÄzÀ £ÀA.8389/06-07 gÀAvÉ ºÉƸÀPÉÆÃmÉ G¥À-£ÉÆAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ £ÀPÀ®ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®zÀ CªÀUÀºÀ£ÉUÁV ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÁVzÉ." 11. On a meticulous reading of the extracted pleadings, more particularly paragraph No.5 of the plaint, it clearly emerges that the plaintiffs have made a categorical and unequivocal admission that the suit schedule property was originally granted in favour of their grandfather, who is also the father of defendant No.1. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions that when land is granted by the State in favour of an individual, such grant carries with it a presumption that the property so granted partakes the character of the self-acquired property of the grantee, unless a contrary intention is expressly pleaded and established. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5239 RFA No. 1978 of 2025 12. In the present case, there are no pleadings whatsoever to indicate that the grant was made in favour of the joint family or that the property was impressed with the character of joint family property. In the absence of such pleadings, the admitted position that the land was granted to the father of defendant No.1 necessarily leads to the conclusion that the property was his self-acquired property. Upon the demise of the original grantee, defendant No.1 succeeded to the property by way of intestate succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in his individual capacity. Once defendant No.1 inherited the property in his individual capacity, the property became his absolute property, over which he had full powers of disposition. 13. Consequently, the present plaintiffs, who are the son and daughter of defendant No.1 and grandchildren of the original grantee, do not acquire any birth right in respect of the suit schedule property. In such circumstances, the very foundation of the suit for partition - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5239 RFA No. 1978 of 2025 is rendered untenable and on this ground alone, the plaint is liable to be rejected. 14. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the suit schedule property is treated as joint family property, the plaint is still liable to fail. Plaintiff No.1, admittedly being a major at the time of execution of the registered sale deed dated 18.08.1995, is a signatory to the said document. Having consciously joined in the execution of the sale deed, plaintiff No.1 cannot maintain a suit for partition without seeking appropriate relief for cancellation of the sale deed in a manner known to law. In the absence of a prayer for cancellation, the suit as framed is legally untenable and is hit by the settled principle that a party to a document cannot approbate and reprobate. 15. Insofar as plaintiff No.2, who is the daughter of defendant No.1, is concerned, it is an admitted position that the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5239 RFA No. 1978 of 2025 Act conferring coparcenary rights on daughters came into force with effect from 20.12.2004. The alienation in question having been effected in the year 1995, much prior to the commencement of the amendment, plaintiff No.2 had no coparcenary or birth right in the suit schedule property as on the date of alienation. Therefore, she has no locus standi to question the alienation made by her father. The said alienation is clearly protected and saved by the first proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as it stood prior to amendment. 16. Viewed from any angle, the plaintiffs had no subsisting cause of action to institute the present suit. The doctrine of estoppel squarely operates against plaintiff No.1, while there exists a clear statutory bar insofar as plaintiff No.2 is concerned. On both these counts, the plaint is ex facie barred by law and is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5239 RFA No. 1978 of 2025 17. In this background, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Trial Judge rejecting the plaint is in consonance with settled principles of law and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the "Negative". 18. Point No.(ii) :- In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4