Karnataka HC Upholds Rejection Of Partition Plaintiffs’ Bid To Sell Standing Coconut And Areca Crops Before Their 2/6 Share Is Determined

The petitioners had filed a partition suit seeking separate possession of a 2/6th share in the suit schedule properties.

They applied under Order XXXIX Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for permission to sell the standing coconut and areca nut crops on Item Nos. 1 to 14, to the extent of their claimed share.

The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, rejected I.A. No. 7 on 6 July 2026.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order XXXIX Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was invoked in the application seeking permission to sell the standing crops.

The Court applied the principle that, in a pending partition suit, a claimant’s share in the suit properties must first be determined and possession delivered to that extent before the claimant may seek permission to remove standing crops on the basis of that share.

A party asserting a right to income from the crops may instead make an appropriate application before the Trial Court.

The Court noted that the petitioners sought partition and separate possession of a 2/6th share, but that share remained to be determined in the pending proceedings.

Because possession had not been delivered to the petitioners, the Trial Court was justified in refusing permission to sell or remove crops from the suit properties.

The Court also distinguished a claim to the crops themselves from a claim to income derived from them, leaving the latter open for an appropriate application before the Trial Court.

It dismissed the writ petition, while leaving the petitioners at liberty to apply to the Trial Court regarding income from the standing coconut and areca nut crops.