- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5063 RFA No. 2354 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2354 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. GOPINATH B SO KAVALAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O BEERANAKALLU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 127. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VIJAYAMMA @ VIJAYALAKSHMAMMA D/O KAVALAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY DO KAVALAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. SRI. UGRAMURTHY DO KAVALAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 4. SRI. B. SATISH D/O KAVALAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5063 RFA No. 2354 of 2024 5. SRI. BHEEMAIAH S/O MUDDAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ALL ARE R/O BEERANAKALLU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 127. LAKSHMINARASAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS (DELETED BEFORE TRIAL COURT) 6. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O SATHYAMANGALA KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 104. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O LATE RANGAPPA DEAD BY LRS 7. SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O9 LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 8. SRI. THYAGARAJU S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 9. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5063 RFA No. 2354 of 2024 RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 9 ARE R/O AGNIBANNIRAYANAGARA SATHYAMANGALA, KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU - 572 104. 10. SRI. VENKATACHALAIAH S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 11. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 12. SRI. THIMMAIAH S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 13. SRI. CHANNAGIRIYAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 14. SRI. LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 15. SMT. JAYAMMA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 16. SMT. ANASUYA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.10 TO 16 ARE R/O AGNIBANNIRAYANAGARA SATHYAMANGALA, KASABA HOBLI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5063 RFA No. 2354 of 2024 TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANDESH A.S, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R11 AND R14; SRI. MANUSHANKAR S.S, ADVOCATE FOR R12; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.03.2025, NOTICE TO R1 TO R7 AND R13, R15 AND R16 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2023 PASSED ON IA IN OS.NO.254/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE IA FILED U/O VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. 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 plaintiff assailing the order rejecting the plaint on the ground that the alienations made by the plaintiff’s father are clearly saved in terms of the first provision to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, (for short, 'Act'). Adverting to the amendment to Section 6 of the Act, the Court has rejected the plaint. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5063 RFA No. 2354 of 2024 3. The translated family tree is extracted as under: 4. Facts leading to the case are as under: he plaintiff, who is the daughter of one Narasimhaiah, instituted the present suit in O.S.No.254/2014 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. It is not in dispute that both the suit items were alienated by the plaintiff’s father much prior to ARUN KUMAR L SHALINI L. (25 YEARS) (18 YEARS) NARASIMHAIAH (LATE) WIFE LAKSHMINARASAMMA (LATE) DODDAIAH (LATE) WIFE CHIKKAMMA (LATE) KAVALAMMA (60 YEARS) HUSBAND BHUMAIAH (70 YEARS) NAGARATHNAMMA (50 YEARS) HUSBAND LAKSHMINARAYANA (55 YEARS) VIJAYAMMA B SRINIVASAMURTHY B GOPINATH B. UGRAMURTHY B SATISH B (40 YEARS) (38 YEARS) (36 YEARS) (34 YEARS) (32 YEARS) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5063 RFA No. 2354 of 2024 the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Trial Court, by invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, rejected the plaint. The said order of rejection is assailed in the present proceedings. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal, would contend that the learned Trial Judge, having initially relegated the parties to lead evidence, committed a jurisdictional error in subsequently exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that once the suit had progressed beyond the preliminary stage, rejection of the plaint was impermissible. Learned counsel would further submit that the Trial Court has erroneously applied the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and therefore the impugned order suffers from perversity and warrants interference by this Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5063 RFA No. 2354 of 2024 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the purchaser/transferee would submit that the plaint averments themselves clearly disclose that Item Nos.1 and 2 were sold by the plaintiff’s father long prior to the amendment to Section 6 of the Act. It is contended that such alienations are expressly protected under the first proviso to Section 6 of the Act and, therefore, the plaintiff does not acquire any coparcenary right in respect of the said properties. In the absence of any subsisting right or cause of action, the suit for partition is barred by law, and the Trial Court has rightly exercised jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings on record. A careful reading of the plaint averments reveals that the plaintiff has herself admitted, in the prayer column, that Item No.1 was alienated by her father under a registered sale deed dated 09.04.1990. Further, in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Order I - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5063 RFA No. 2354 of 2024 Rule 10(2) of the CPC seeking impleadment of subsequent transferees, the plaintiff has categorically acknowledged that Item No.2 was sold by her father under registered sale deeds dated 21.12.2000 and 13.08.2001. These admissions are clear and unambiguous and emanate from the plaintiff’s own pleadings. 8. In view of the rival submissions and the material placed on record, the following points arise for consideration: i. Whether the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint by invoking the first proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, read with Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, suffers from perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference? ii. What order? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5063 RFA No. 2354 of 2024 Finding on point no.i: 9. A meaningful reading of the plaint averments unequivocally discloses that Item No.1 of the suit schedule property was alienated by the plaintiff’s father under a registered sale deed dated 09.04.1990 in favour of the mother of defendant Nos.3 to 10. Further, the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment of subsequent purchasers clearly reveals that Item No.2 was also sold by the plaintiff’s father under registered sale deeds dated 21.12.2000 and 13.08.2001. These pleadings constitute clear and unambiguous admissions made by the plaintiff herself and form the very foundation of the suit. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff sought to contend that the application seeking rejection of the plaint was filed in the year 2019 and, therefore, the Trial Court, having already relegated the parties to lead - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5063 RFA No. 2354 of 2024 evidence, erred in exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court is not inclined to accede to the said contention. The scheme of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC unequivocally empowers the Court to reject the plaint at any stage of the proceedings, if on a meaningful reading of the plaint it is found that the suit does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by any law. The power conferred under Order VII Rule 11 is a continuing power and is not curtailed merely because issues are framed or the parties are directed to lead evidence. There is a catena of judicial pronouncements which consistently hold that the procedure contemplated under Order VII Rule 11 is not circumscribed by any stage of the suit. 11. In the case on hand, the plaintiff, who is a daughter of the propositus, has instituted a suit for partition seeking to assert coparcenary rights in respect of properties which admittedly stood alienated by her father much prior to the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5063 RFA No. 2354 of 2024 Succession Act, 1956. The first proviso to Section 6 of the Act expressly saves all dispositions, alienations, partitions, and testamentary dispositions effected before 20.12.2004. The proviso clearly stipulates that the rights conferred upon a daughter by virtue of the amendment shall not affect or invalidate any alienation or disposition of property which had taken place prior to the said cut-off date. In the backdrop of the plaintiff’s own pleadings, wherein she has unequivocally acknowledged that both Item Nos.1 and 2 were alienated by her father prior to the amendment, these transactions are statutorily protected and cannot be reopened by invoking the amended Section 6. 12. In view of the admitted factual matrix, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaint is liable to be rejected on more than one ground. Firstly, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, as the plaintiff does not possess any enforceable right to seek partition of properties which were no longer part of the joint family estate on the date when the amended provision came into - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5063 RFA No. 2354 of 2024 force. Secondly, even assuming that the plaintiff acquired the status of a coparcener by virtue of the amendment, the suit is clearly barred by law in view of the first proviso to Section 6 of the Act, which saves the alienations made by the father much prior to the statutory cut-off date. The Trial Court has rightly adverted to and applied the first proviso to Section 6 of the Act. When the properties stood alienated during the lifetime of the father and long prior to the amendment, no right survives in favour of the plaintiff to seek partition. Consequently, the suit is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected. This Court does not find any illegality, perversity, or legal infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, Point No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the negative. 13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5063 RFA No. 2354 of 2024 ORDER The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8