- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 38792 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. M. CHAITHRA D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA W/O VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS HURULUGURKI VILLAGER DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SARASAKUMARI @ SARASAMMA W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2. SMT. B.M. CHAYA D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 3. SRI. B.M. HEMANTHKUMAR AR S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT VISHWANATHAPURA VILLAGE DEVANAHLLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH M. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON IA NO. 2 DATED 26.11.2025 PASSED IN OS NO. 516/2025 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI WHICH IS AT ANNX-A AND DISMISS THE I.A.NO.2 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER ORDER VI RULE 16 OF CPC AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ like nature to set aside the order on I.A.No.2 dated 26.11.2025 passed in O.S.No.516/2025 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli which is at Annexure-A and dismiss the I.A.No.2 filed by the Respondents under order VI Rule 16 of CPC. b) Grant such other relief/s that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity." 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner/plaintiff is none other than the daughter of respondent No.1-Smt. Sarasakumari @ Sarasamma, who is also the mother of respondent No.2-B.M.Chaya and respondent No.3-B.M.Hemanthkumar. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute and the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents/defendants for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 schedule immovable properties comprising of 7 items of immovable properties. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 filed a written statement contesting the suit and also putting forth a counter claim specifically contending that she has no objection to effect partition in respect of item Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 of the suit schedule properties, but the suit in respect of item No.5 of the suit schedule properties was liable to be dismissed since the same was the separate self-acquired and stridhan property of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and during her lifetime, respondent No.1 had gifted the said property in favour of respondent No.3. 4. During the pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 16 of the CPC., inter alia contending that since item No.5 of the suit schedule properties was a separate self acquired and stridhan property of respondent No.1, who had gifted the same in favour of respondent No.3, the said item was liable to be deleted from the array of suit schedule properties. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the trial Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under: "ORDER ON I.A.No. II The I.A.No.2 is filed by the defendant No.1 and 3 under Order VI Rule 16 of C.P.C. praying to delete the item No.5 (Strike out the item No.5) as it is self- acquired property of the defendant No.1 as per the plaint averments only and such other reliefs. 2. It is alleged in the affidavit, that the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the item No.5 of the suit property. She gifted the same to the defendant No.3 in the above case. Nor the plaintiff neither the defendant No.2 have share in the said property. The plaintiff has filed the present suit including the said property with a malafide intention. Hence, it is prayed to delete the item No.5 from the suit properties. 3. On the other hand, the plaintiff has contended in her objection that the application is not maintainable. The item No.5 is the joint and ancestral of the property the plaintiff and the defendants. The said property cannot be deleted from the suit items. The Gift Deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiff’s share and the same is void. Hence, it is prayed to reject the application and proceed with matter. 4. Based on the above said pleadings, the following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property is required to be deleted from the plaint schedule properties ? 2) What order ? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 5. Findings to the above points are as follows: Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final Order for the following REASONS 6. Point No.1 :- The plaintiff has contended in he plaint that one Late Sri. Munishamappa was the father of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 and 3. The 1st defendant was the legally wedded wife of Sri. Munishamappa and mother of the plaintiff, the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.3. The suit properties are the Hindu Undivided joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. Since, the defendants refused to make partition, the plaintiff has filed present suit for Partition and Separate Possession. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 and 3 are appeared and they have filed their written statement contending that the item No.1 to 4, 6 and 7 are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. The item No.5 of the suit schedule properties was the absolute property of the 1st defendant. She got the same through her father and mother. Since she got the same from her father’s family, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.2 and 3 have right in the same. Therefore, they have contended that the suit of the plaintiff with respect to item No.1 to 4, 6 and 7 may be decreed as prayed for and item No.5 may be deleted. 7. The defendant No.1 and 3 have contended in their application that the item No.5 of the suit schedule property was the absolute property of the defendant No.1. It is well established principle that the plaint cannot be rejected in part. But the unnecessary pleadings and prayers can be striked out by using powers under Order 6 Rule 16 of C.P.C. In the plaint itself, if there is no cause of action against the item No.5 of the suit schedule properties, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 then such property can be deleted. Therefore, it is necessary to see the plaint averments. 8. The plaintiff has specifically contended in para No.5 of the plaint as herein bellow: 5. The Plaintiff submits that, the 1st Defendant grandfather late Hanumantharayappa having ancestral property after death of grandfather of the 1st Defendant, mother of the 1st Defendant namely Smt. Munilakshmamma name has been entered in revenue records as per pouthi katha of her grandfather properties. After death of Munilakshmamma the pouthi katha has been entered in the name of Sri. Narayanappa is the father of the 1st Defendant, the late Munilakshmamma and Sri. Narayanappa having 4 children namely 1) Smt. Sarasamma 2) Smt. Drakshyanamma 3) Smt.Indramma 4)V.N.Hariprakash. after the death of Munilakshmamma and Naryanappa their children have portioned their self the partition deed has been registered before the sub register Devanahalli vide document No.DNH-1-12415-16, Book No.1 stored in CD No.DNHD587 dated 19.03.2016. the situated at properties are Vishwanathapura Village, Kundanahobli, Devanahalli Taluk, the property bearing Sy.No.165 measuring 5 acres 0.5 guntas, Sy.No.214/1 measuring 3 acre 21 guntas, Sy.No.207/1 measuring 0.19 guntas, Sy.No.219 measuring 1 acre 0.18 guntas, Sy.No.20 0.16 guntas, Sy.No.21/1 measuring 0.15 guntas, Sy.No.47/3 measuring 0.2guntas Sy.No.54/1 measuring 0.6 gunts, Sy.No. 58/2 measuring 0.26 guntas, Sy.No.63 measuirng 20 guntas, Sy.No.64/1 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 measuring 20 guntas, Sy.No.95 measuring 1 acre 0.23 guntas, some house properties at Vishwanathapura Village, Kundana Hobli, the mother of the Plaintiff Smt. Sarasamma having legitimate share of her father acquired as per partition deed only Sy.No.165 measuring 2 acre 0.20 guntas out of 5 acre 0,9 guntas. After obtained partition legitimate her share name has been entered in revenue records Sy.No. 165 measuring 2 acre 20 guntas situated a Vishwanthapura Village, Kundana Hobli, the 1st Defendan is in piece possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of partition Deed dated 19.03.2016 Thereafter, the 1st Defendant name has been entered in the revenue records. The Plaintiff producing herewith copy c partition Deed and marked as Document No.7. From the above said pleadings and the document produced by the plaintiff herself, i.e., the partition deed dated 19.03.2016, it is clear that the item No.5 of the suit schedule properties was fallen to the share of the 1st defendant from her father’s family. In the said property, during the lifetime of the 1st defendant, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.2 and 3 have any kind of right. The plaintiff cannot contend that the said property is also joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the said property has been thrown into common hotchpot. Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act says that any property acquired by Hindu female, that property has to be treated as her absolute property. During her lifetime, In the said property, neither her children nor her husband have right. Therefore, from the plaint averments itself. It is clear that the plaintiff has not made out any cause of action for the item No.5 of the suit schedule properties. In other words, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 plaintiff has not shown proper reasons or were grounds to say that the item No.5 of the suit schedule property is also joint and family property of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 3. When such being the case, the plaintiff cannot include such property in the present suit. 9. The counsel for the plaintiff has relied on some Judgments. The said Judgments are not helpful for the plaintiff to say that the plaintiff being the daughter of the 1st defendant has right in the absolute property of 1st defendant which she got from her parental family. On the other hand, the counsel for the defendant No.1 and 3 has relaid on some Judgments. The said Judgments are helpful for them to say that the item No.5 is the absolute property of the defendant No.1 as per the plaint averments itself. When the defendant No.1 is alive, the plaintiff cannot contend that it is joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants. It is also necessary to say that the item No.5 of the suit schedule properties has been gifted by the 1st defendant in favour of the defendant No.3 who is the son of defendant No.1. When such being the case, it is just and necessary to allow the application and delete the item No.5 of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, Point No.1 held in the Affirmative. 10. Point No. 2:- For the above said reason for the following; O R D E R The application filed by the defendant No.1 and 3 under Order 6 Rule 16 of C.P.C. is hereby allowed. The item No.5 of the suit schedule properties is hereby deleted." - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 5. As can be seen from the impugned order and the material on record, the trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application in the light of the specific averments made in the plaint itself by the petitioner to the effect that item No.5 of the suit schedule properties bearing Survey No.165/2 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas situated at Baitharahally Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanally Taluk was the property acquired by defendant No.1 at a partition between herself and her parents and other family members. Thereby as a result of which, the said item No.5 became the separate, absolute, exclusive, self- acquired and stridhan property of defendant No.1 by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. In this context, it is pertinent to extract paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint averments of the plaint, which reads as under: "5. The Plaintiff submits that, the 1 Defendant grandfather late Hanumantharayappa having ancestral property after death of grandfather of the 1 Defendant, mother of the 1 Defendant namely Smt.Munilakshmamma name has been entered in revenue records as per pouthi katha of her grandfather properties. After death of Munilakshmamma the pouthi katha has been entered in the name of Sri. Narayanappa is the father of the 1 Defendant, the late Munilakshmamma and Sri. Narayanappa having 4 children namely 1) Smt.Sarasamma 2) Smt.Drakshyanamma 3) Smt.Indramma 4)V.N.Hariprakash. after the death of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 Munilakshmamma and Naryanappa their children have portioned their self the partition deed has been registered before the sub register Devanahalli vide document No.DNH-1-12415-16, Book No.1 stored in CD No. DNHD587 dates 19.03.2016. the properties are situated at Vishwanathapura Village. Kundanahobli. Devanahalli Taluk, the property bearing Sy.No. 165 measuring 5 acres 0.5 guntas, Sy.No.214/1 measuring 3 acre 21 guntas, Sy.No.207/1 measuring 0.19 guntas, Sy.No.219 measuring 1 acre 0.18 guntas, Sy.No.20 0.16 guntas, Sy.No.21/1 measuring 0.15 guntas, Sy.No.47/3 measuring 0.2guntas Sy.No.54/1 measuring 0.6 gunts, Sy.No. 58/2 measuring 0.26 guntas, Sy.No.63 measuring 20 guntas, Sy.No.64/1 measuring 20 guntas, Sy.No.95 measuring 1 acre 0.23 guntas, some house properties at Vishwanathapura Village, Kundana Hobli, the mother of the Plaintiff Smt. Sarasamma having legitimate share of her father acquired as per partition deed only Sy.No.165 measuring 2 acre 0.20 guntas out of 5 acre 0.9 guntas. After obtained partition legitimate her share name has been entered in revenue records Sy.No. 165 measuring 2 acre 20 guntas situated at Vishwanthapura Village, Kundana Hobli, the 1st Defendant is in piece possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of partition Deed dated 19.03.2016. Thereafter, the 1st Defendant name has been entered in the revenue records. The Plaintiff producing herewith copy of partition Deed and marked as Document No.7. 6. The Plaintiff submits that, the 1st Defendant got her legitimate share in the suit schedule property by virtue of partition Deed bearing Sy.No. 165/2 measuring 2 acre 20 guntas situated at Bydrarahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, thereafter, her name has been entered in the revenue records. The 1st Defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property item No.5 in this suit. The 1st Defendant - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 had executed Gift Deed in favour of her son namely Sri. Hemanth Kumar. B.M which was registered in the office of the Senior Sub Registrar, Devanahalli vide document No.1 18513/2024-25, book No.1 stored in CD No.DNH-1-18513/2024-25 dated 06.02.2025 property bearing Sy.No. 165/2 measuring 2 acre 20 guntas. The Plaintiff producing herewith copy of the RTC and certified copy of the Gift Deed dated 06.02.2024 and marked as Document No.8 & 9. The suit schedule properties and rest of the suit schedule properties are in the name of Defendant No.1 Smt.Sarasamma W/o Late Munishamappa the joint family members who is agriculturist and she utilized her earnings for the welfare of the joint family and also acquired the properties from her ancestral and husband ancestral properties." 6. As is clear from the averments made by the petitioner/plaintiff herself at paragraph 6, there is an unequivocal, unambiguous, definite and certain admission made by the petitioner/plaintiff that the said property was acquired by respondent No.1 at a partition between herself and her parental family and the said property being her self- acquired property was gifted absolutely by her in favour of respondent No.3/defendant No.3. 7. Under these circumstances, it is relevant to refer to the provisions contained in Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and the judgment of the Division Bench of this - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 Court in the case of Laxman and others vs. Smt.Shantawwa and others (RFA No.100561/2019 dated 24.09.2025), wherein it is held as under: "36. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the compromise decree dated 16.02.2005 passed in O.S.No.222/2004 and compromise decree dated 31.08.2006 passed in O.S.No.234/2004 were not binding upon plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties since the same were ancestral properties in the hands of Mallawwa. In our considered opinion, the said finding is completely erroneous both on facts and law inasmuch as upon the demise of Hanumawwa intestate on 10.11.1979, the suit schedule properties devolved equally upon her four daughters including Mallawwa as class-I heirs in terms of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 1956, as a result of which, Mallawwa became entitled absolutely to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. There is no gain saying the fact that the properties possessed by a female Hindu acquired by her whether before or after commencement of the Act of 1956, would be held by her an absolute owner and not as a limited owner in terms of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, and the same would be her stridhan property over which neither her husband nor her children would be entitled to lay a claim during her lifetime nor challenge any transaction, alienation, compromise, etc., entered into by her during her lifetime. While dealing with the concept of stridhan and the right of absolute ownership vested in a female Hindu during her lifetime, the Apex Court in the case of Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar and another at paragraph No.28 held as under: “28. To sum up, the position seems to be that a pure and simple entrustment of stridhan without creating any rights in the husband - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 excepting putting the articles in his possession does not entitle him to use the same to the detriment of his wife without her consent. The husband has no justification for not returning the said articles as and when demanded by the wife nor can he burden her with losses of business by using the said property which was never intended by her while entrusting possession of stridhan. On the allegations in the complaint, the husband is no more and no less than a pure and simple custodian acting on behalf of his wife and if he diverts the entrusted property elsewhere or for different purposes he takes a clear risk of prosecution under Section 406 of the IPC. On a parity of reasoning, it is manifest that the husband, being only a custodian of the stridhan of his wife, cannot be said to be in joint possession thereof and thus acquire a joint interest in the property.” 37. So also while interpreting Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, the Apex Court in the case of Gangamma Vs. G.Nagarathnamma and others held as under: 14. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has a bearing on the issue. As the properties at item Nos. 1 & 2 are recorded in the name of the appellant, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary in this case, the appellant by operation of Section 14(1) of the said Act is the full owner of those properties. In the facts of this case discussed above it has to be accepted that those properties are not joint properties but the appellant is the sole owner of those properties. 15. The principle laid down in Section 14(1) of the said Act has been read by courts in a very comprehensive manner since the said Act - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 overrides the old law on Stri Dhana in respect of properties possessed by female Hindu. In Eramma Vs. Veerupana and others - AIR 1966 SC 1879, Justice Ramaswami speaking for the Court held that Section 14(1) of the Act contemplates that a female Hindu, who in the absence of the said provision would have been a limited owner of the property, will now become full owner by virtue of the said section. Such female Hindu will have all powers of disposition to make the estate heritable by their own heirs and not revertible to the heirs of the last male holder. 16. Again in the case of Punithavalli Ammal Vs. Minor Ramalingam and another – AIR 1970 SC 1730, a three- Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the position that the said Act has overriding effect and confers full ownership on Hindu female and made it very clear that rights conferred under Section 14(1) to a Hindu female are not restricted or limited by any rule of Hindu law. In the opinion of the Court in Punithavalli (supra) the said section makes a clear departure from all texts of Hindu laws and rules and those texts and rules cannot be used for circumventing the plain meaning of Section 14(1) of the said Act. 17. In Badri Pershad Vs. Smt. Kanso Devi – AIR 1970 SC 1963, the learned Judges held that the word 'acquired' in sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the said Act has to be given the widest possible meaning (See paras 6 & 7). 18. In Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and others Vs. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by L.Rs. - AIR 1977 SC 1944, Justice Bhagwati speaking for the Court held that sub-Section (1) of Section 14 is very large in its amplitude and covers every kind of acquisition of property by a - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 female Hindu. Regardless of whether such property was possessed by a female Hindu on the date of commencement of the Act or was subsequently acquired or possessed, she would be the full owner of the property. 19. In view of such consistent views taken by this Court on the interpretation of Section 14, we hold that Section 14(1) of the said Act would apply in respect of the properties which stand in the name of the appellant and the appellant would be the full owner of those properties.” 38. As stated suprahaving regard to the undisputed fact that Hanumawwa died intestate and the property devolved upon Mallawwa, who was one of her class-I heirs in terms of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 1956, the suit schedule property to the extent of 1/4th share of Mallawwa would be her separate, absolute, exclusive and self-acquired property and the same would not partake the nature of ancestral or joint family properties in the hands of Mallawwa so as to enable the plaintiff, the daughter of Mallawwa to put forth the claim in the same nor challenge any alienation, compromise, transaction, document ,etc., entered into by Mallawwa during her lifetime. 39. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court completely misdirected itself in coming to the erroneous conclusion that the suit schedule properties were the ancestral joint family properties in the hands of Mallawwa and without appreciating the same were her self acquired, absolute and exclusive properties and that since Mallawwa was entitled to enter into compromise in relation to her one fourth share with the appellants, the plaintiff did not have locus-standi nor would not be entitled to challenge the compromise after the demise of Mallawwa and - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 consequently the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside." 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was fully justified in allowing the application filed by respondent Nos.1 & 3 and has come to the correct conclusion that continuation of the suit in respect of item No.5 of the suit schedule properties would be an exercise in futility and as such, the impugned order passed to the trial Court does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 9. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit at this stage that while respondent Nos.1 and 3 have filed a memo seeking the suit to be decreed in respect of the remaining item Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 of the suit schedule properties, the petitioner has filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint and both the memo filed by the defendants and the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff may be directed to be considered by the trial Court and disposed of in accordance with law by leaving/keeping open all contentions. The joint submission made by both side is hereby placed on record. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:688 WP No. 38792 of 2025 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) Petition is hereby dismissed. ii) Impugned order dated 26.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.516/2025 pending on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli is hereby confirmed. iii) The trial Court is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the memo filed by the defendants and the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff in accordance with law after giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all parties. iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19