SRI HANUMANTHAPPA vs SMT. ADILAKSHMAMMA @ AMMAYAMMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 41 OF 2025 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O LATE SMT. LINGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
TH
R/O GANGA RATHNA, 11 CROSS,
ADJACENT MARTIN ENGLISH SCHOOL,
JNANA JYOTHI NAGAR,
ULLAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 056
2. SRI. M. KUMARA
S/O LATE SMT. LINGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O GANGA RATHNA,
11TH CROSS, ADJACENT MARTIN
ENGLISH SCHOOL, JNANA JYOTHI
NAGAR, ULLAHALLI MAIN RIAD,
BENGALURU-560 056
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GANAPATHI S. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ADILAKSHMAMMA @ AMMAYAMMA
W/O MUNIRAJU
D/O LATE GARAKE CHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O TALAGHATTAPURA VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 062
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
M. RAVI,
S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O MACHOHALLI VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 130
2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE VAJRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O MACHOHALLI COLONY
BAPA GRAMA, DASANAPURA HOBLI.
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-562 130
3. SRI. MAYANNA
S/O LATE VAJRAPPA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
R/O MACHOHALLI COLONY
BAPA GRAMA, DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 130
4. SMT. CHANDRAMMA
D/O LATE VAJRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O MACHOHALLI COLONY,
BAPA GRAMA, DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 130
5. SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O DEV TOWER, 2ND CROSS,
ST
1 'D' MAIN,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
OPP. ADHICHUNCHAN SAMUDHAYA BHAVANA,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040
6. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE M. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
BYADRAHALLI VILLAGE,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 091
7. SRI. KISHORE KUMAR
S/O LATE CHIGAN RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O NO.313, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH
V/O/D:15/04/2025)
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 28.11.2024. PASSED ON IA NO. IX IN OS NO.
610/2014 ON THE FILE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NELAMANGALA, DISMISSING THE IA NO.IX FILED UNDER
ORDER VII RULE 11(a, b AND d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
01.10.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
CAV ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by
the order dated 28.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.IX in
O.S.No.610/2024 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Nelamangala.
2. The respondents herein have filed a suit seeking the
relief of partition and also to declare that the sale deed dated
08.08.1994 is not binding on the plaintiff's share. It is the
specific case of the plaintiff that she is the daughter of Garake
Channaiah and Smt. Mayamma. The plaintiff's parents died in
the year 1990. Garake Channaiah and Smt. Mayamma left
behind two daughters, namely, Kamalamma, defendant No.4,
and Adilakshmamma, the plaintiff, and a son, Vajarappa.
Vajarappa died on 07.03.1992, leaving behind his wife, Smt.
Lakshmamma, and son, Mayanna, and daughter, Smt.
Chandramma. The property bearing Sy.No.55/7 (old
Sy.No.55/3), measuring 4 acres 11 guntas, situated at
Machohalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk,
was acquired by the father of the plaintiff under the registered
sale deed dated 24.05.1928. The property is a joint family
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4, and are
entitled to a share in the said property, and no partition has
been effected between them. The plaintiff, being a member of
the joint family, is entitled to a share in the suit schedule
property. The plaintiff had produced the revenue records issued
by the revenue authorities in respect of the suit schedule
property before the Court, along with a series of revenue
records pertaining to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff
demanded her legitimate share in the schedule property from
defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the month of June 2014. The
defendants went on postponing the fulfilment of the demand
made by the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff convened a
panchayat in the village on 15.08.2014. It is the case of the
plaintiff that, during the panchayat held in the village,
defendant Nos.1 to 3 disclosed that they had alienated the suit
schedule property in favour of defendant No.5 and also
produced a copy of the sale deed dated 08.08.1994. On
15.08.2014, she came to know about the illegal acts committed
by defendant Nos.1 to 3, and the plaintiff was shocked by their
acts. After coming to know about the same, she obtained the
documents. Since her father had acquired the property under
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
the registered sale deed dated 24.05.1928, she succeeded to
the estate left behind by her father. Further, the suit schedule
property is a joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant
Nos.1 to 4, and the plaintiff has a definite share in the suit
property. The sale effected by the defendants is not binding on
her.
3. The suit was filed in the year 2014. In the said suit,
the petitioners herein filed an application seeking rejection of
the plaint. It is stated that the plaint does not disclose any
cause of action and that the cause of action shown in para
No.16 of the plaint is a created one. The plaintiff was fully
aware of the sale transactions that took place with respect to
the suit schedule property, wherein defendant No.5 purchased
the same on 08.08.1994 and thereafter sold the same to
defendant No.6 on 08.12.1995. Further, having received a sum
of Rs.90,000/-, the plaintiff executed a consent deed in favour
of defendant No.6 on 30.11.2006, relinquishing all her title and
interest in favour of defendant No.6 and also affirming that she
would not create any problems of any nature. A legal notice
was sent to the plaintiff's mother through her counsel on
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
31.07.2008, stating that she came to know of the sale deed
dated 08.12.1995 on 03.01.2008. Hence, the suit was filed
much beyond the period permitted under the law of limitation
and is liable to be rejected. It is stated that the plaintiff is not
entitled to any share in the suit schedule property in view of
the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. It provides that nothing
contained in the Section shall affect or invalidate any
disposition or alienation, including any partition or
testamentary disposition of property, which had taken place
before 20.12.2004. Admittedly, the defendant purchased the
suit property by a registered deed dated 08.12.1995. Hence, on
these grounds, an application is filed.
4. The Court, by the impugned order, had rejected the
said application. While rejecting the application, the Court had
observed that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the
allegations made by the defendants in their written statement
or in the application filed for rejection of the plaint. The Court
has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it
discloses a cause of action and, if it does, then the plaint
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. So far as
the contention of defendant No.6 with regard to the
undervaluation of the suit is concerned, it falls under Clause (b)
of Rule 11 of Order VII. It is pertinent to note that, as per the
said provision, where the relief claimed is undervalued and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation
within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so, only then
can the plaint be rejected. In order to invoke this provision,
there should be a Court order directing the plaintiff to correct
the valuation within a time limit. In this case, so far, no such
order has been passed. The Court observed that in paras 5, 6,
8 and 9 of the plaint, there are detailed averments regarding
the cause of action for filing the suit. On going through the
cause of action pleaded in support of the relief sought in the
plaint, it is evident that the contention taken on behalf of
defendant Nos.6(a) and 6(b) herein that there is no cause of
action for the suit is totally without any basis, and in that view
of the matter, the said contention is to be rejected. It is well
settled that while adjudicating an application under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC, the Court must look at the plaint and nothing
else. Hence, the Court dismissed the application.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the mother of the petitioners purchased the
property through registered sale deed dated 08.12.1995 and
since then she is in enjoyment of the same till her death and
subsequently the petitioners continued to enjoy the same as
absolute owners. Even today, the petitioners are in possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any
obstruction from anyone. In the year 2014, respondent No.1
has filed the suit seeking partition, declaration and injunction in
respect of the suit schedule properties. But in view of Section
(1) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005, the registered partition or registered alienation of
property cannot be questioned subsequent to 20.12.2004 by
female member. Respondent No.1 has executed a consent
letter in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the
petitioner's mother on 30.11.2006 after receiving Rs.90,000/-
from her. In the said consent letter, clearly mentioned the sale
transaction done in respect of the suit schedule property. The
suit is filed in the year 2014, is hit by limitation. It is submitted
that the plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 31.07.2008
through her counsel stating that in the third week of January
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
2008 she came to know about the registered sale deed dated
08.12.1995, but the suit is filed in the year 2014. Hence, it is
barred by time. Though the suit is filed in the year 2014, till
today respondent No.1 has not shown any interest to adduce
evidence. It is submitted that the suit is barred limitation. It is
submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider all these
aspects.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma
1
Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others , he relied on paragraph
No.117, which reads as under:
“117. The Cabinet note made on 29.7.2005 with
respect to ‘partition’ is quoted hereunder:
“5.2 In this connection it may be noted that the
amendments made in the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 by the States of Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu and
the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System
(Abolition) Act, 1975 will be superseded by any
subsequent Central enactment containing
provisions to the contrary as the Central
legislation will prevail over the State
enactments by virtue of operation of doctrine of
repugnancy enunciated in article 254 of the
Constitution. Innumerable settled transactions
and partitions which have taken place hitherto
will also become disturbed by the proposed
course of action. Further, there could be
heartburning from the majority of the Hindu
population. In the circumstances, it is proposed
that we may remove the distinction between
1
(2020) 9 SCC 1
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
married and unmarried daughters and at the
same time clearly lay down that alienation or
disposition of property made at any time before
the 20 th day of December, 2004, that is, the
date on which the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Bill, 2004 was introduced in the
Rajya Sabha will not be affected or invalidated.
Consequential changes are also suggested in
sub-section (5) of proposed section 6.””
Relying on this, it is submitted that the court has failed to
consider the case of the defendant and it is submitted that
order impugned needs to be set aside and the plaint has to be
rejected.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that the court has rightly considered and passed order
and no interference is called for. The plaint, as shown, makes
out a cause of action, and the documents relied on by the
defendant cannot be considered while considering an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record. The scope of Order VII Rule 11
of the CPC is well settled. The Court is required to examine the
plaint as a whole to determine whether it discloses a cause of
action or whether the suit is barred by law. The defence raised
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
by the defendants cannot form the basis for rejection unless
the bar is apparent from the plaint itself. Similarly, where the
plaint discloses a clear statutory bar, the Court cannot permit
the suit to proceed merely because the plaintiff has framed the
relief as one for partition. The first question concerns the
applicability of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The plaintiff's case is that her father purchased the property in
1928 and died in 1990. If the property was his separate
property and he died intestate, the plaintiff would have
inherited a share as a Class-I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. Such a right existed independently of the
2005 amendment.
9. In Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma’s case ,
referred supra, the Supreme Court recognised the equal
coparcenary rights conferred upon daughters under substituted
Section 6, while also recognising the statutory protection
afforded to transactions preceding 20.12.2004. However, the
protection afforded to earlier alienations cannot be understood
as extinguishing the rights which had already vested by
succession before the amendment. In B. S. Lalitha and Ors.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
Vs. Bhuvanesh and Ors., the Supreme Court distinguished
the rights conferred upon daughters by the 2005 Amendment
from their pre-existing rights of inheritance under Section 8 of
the Hindu Succession Act. It held that the saving provision
under amended Section 6 does not extinguish a share which a
daughter had already inherited upon her father's death.
10. In the present case, her father died in 1990,
whereas a disputed sale deed was executed on 08.08.1994. If
the plaintiff acquired a share in the share of her father, that
subsequent alienation cannot be treated as binding on her
share. Whether the property was her father's separate
property, the extent of the share inherited, and whether the
plaintiff subsequently conveyed or relinquished that interest are
matters requiring adjudication. The defendant's contention that
the plaintiff consented to the sale deed may constitute a
substantial defence. However, when such consent is disputed,
its existence and legal effect cannot be determined while
considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. An
allegation of suppression, founded on the same disputed
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
circumstances, cannot independently justify rejection of the
plaint.
11. The next question concerns limitation. The sale
deed was executed in 1994, and the suit was instituted in
2004. The considerable lapse of time undoubtedly requires
examination. However, limitation cannot be determined merely
by calculating the period between the execution of the sale
deed and the institution of the suit without considering the
nature of the plaintiff's right and the relief sought. The plaintiff
claims an inherited share and seeks partition, together with a
declaration that the alienation is not binding upon her. Whether
Article 59, Article 110, or any other applicable provisions of the
Limitation Act governs the claim depends on the nature of the
transaction, the plaintiff's possession in relation to it, and the
circumstances concerning exclusion from the property. The
plaintiff pleads that the alienation came to her knowledge when
she demanded partition. The defendant contends that she had
knowledge of the transaction from its inception and had, in
fact, consented to it. Whether and when the plaintiff became
aware of the alienation, and whether she has been excluded
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
from the property within the period prescribed by law, are
disputed questions that need to be determined.
12. In Smt. Uma Devi and Ors Vs. Anand Kumar
2
and Ors , the Supreme Court emphasized that a stale claim
cannot be revived through a vague assertion of subsequent
knowledge, where the earlier transaction and the circumstances
demonstrating limitation are apparent from the plaint and the
documents relied upon. Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC is permissible. However, that assertion does not mean that
every partition instituted several years after a registered
alienation is necessarily barred. In the present case, the
plaintiff asserts the right arising after father's death in 1990.
While the defendants rely upon her alleged knowledge and
consent to the transaction of 1994, those assertions require
examination of evidence. The mere existence of a registered
sale deed does not, by itself, establish that the plaintiff's claim
for partition is barred. Here, the question of limitation is a
question of fact and law which can only be decided by the court
after a full-fledged trial. The learned Judge was therefore
justified in declining to reject the plaint. The contention
2
2025 INSC 434
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60648
CRP No. 41 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010028882025
regarding limitation, binding effect of the sale deed, and the
plaintiff's entitlement to partition remain open for adjudication.
This Court finds no jurisdictional error warranting interference
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In that view of
the matter, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition
is dismissed .
ii. The learned trial Judge shall decide the
suit independently without being
influenced by any of the observations
made by this Court.
iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand
closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
PKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
*AK