Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 946 (KAR)

Shivanegowda @ Chikkonu, S/o. Late. Eregowda v. Shivannegowda, S/o. Late. Shivanegowda

2025-11-04

V.SRISHANANDA

body2025
ORDER : V. SRISHANANDA, J. 1. Heard Sri.Jayakirthi M. C., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Prakash M. H., learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. Revision petition is filed by Defendant Nos.2 to 14 challenging the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura in O.S.No.196/2017 on 13.10.2020, whereby I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC and under Order II Rule 2(3) read with Section 151 of CPC came to be dismissed. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. A suit for partition and separate possession of the following properties came to be filed by the plaintiff: The following the agriculture lands situated at Maralebekuppe village, Uyamballi Hobali, Kanakapura Taluk. 1. The land bearing Sy.No.212/2, measuring 0- 38 guntas (Total extent 2 acre 33 guntas) bounded on, East by : land of Government halla West by : land of Raju North by : land of Shivanegowda South by : land of Government halla 2. The land bearing Sy.No.236/2, new Sy.No.236/6, measuring 0-28 guntas bounded on, East by : land of land of Sy.No.251/1 belongs to the plaintiff West by : land of Nanjegowda North by : land of Puttegowda South by : land of Bokkegowda 3. The land bearing Sy.No.237/2, measuring 0- 24 guntas, bounded on, East by : land of Bokkegowda West by : land of Sujatha North by : land of Srikantegowda South by : land of Puttegowda 4. The land bearing Sy.No.250/1, measuring 0- 19 guntas, bounded on East by : land of Puttegowda West by : land of Shivanegowda North by : land of Piddegowda South by : land of Basavegowda 5. The land bearing Sy.No.251/1, measuring 0- 38 guntas, bounded on East by : land of Shivanegowda West by : Sy.No.236/6 North by : land of Puttegowda South by : land of Bokkegowda 6. The land bearing Sy.No.252/2, measuring 0- 07 guntas, bounded on East by : land of Nanjundegowda West by : land of Basavalingegowda North by : land of Nanjundegowda and Basavalingegowda South by : land of Basavalingegowda 7. The land bearing Sy.No.252/3, measuring 0- 11 guntas, bounded on East by : land of Chikkashivanegowda West by : land of Muninanjegowda North by : land of Puttegowda South by : land of Channabasavegowda 8. The land bearing Sy.No.252/3, measuring 0- 11 guntas, bounded on East by : land of Chikkashivanegowda West by : land of Muninanjegowda North by : land of Puttegowda South by : land of Channabasavegowda 8. The land bearing Sy.No.256/2, measuring 0- 11 guntas, bounded on, East by : land of Puttegowda West by : land of Shivanegowda North by : land of Nanjundegowda South by : land of Basavalingegowda 9. The land bearing Sy.No.256/4, measuring 0- 08 guntas bounded on, East by : land of Shivanegowda West by : land of Puttegowda North by : land of Basavegowda South by : Anurao Estate 10. The land bearing Sy.No.257/2, measuring 0- 31 guntas, bounded on, East by : land of Shivanegowda S/o. Dodderegowda West by : land of Dodderegowda North by : land of Basalingegowda South by : land of Dodderegowda 11. The land bearing Sy.No.257/3, measuring 0- 04 guntas, bounded on, East by : land of Basavalingegowda West by : land of Shivanegowda North by : land of Basavalingegowda South by : Government Tank 12. The land bearing Sy.No.466/2 measuring 0- 38 guntas, bounded on, East by : land of C.K.Shivanna West by : land of Eeregowda North by : land of Eeregowda South by : Government halla 3.2. Plaintiff contended that suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.15 to 19. 3.3. Yadeeregowda, son of Veeregowda was the kartha of the joint family of the plaintiff and defendants except defendant Nos.13 and 14. 3.4. Suit properties stood in the name of said Yadeeregowda during his lifetime. After Yadeeregowda and his wife Devamma passed away, three sons of Yadeeregowda namely Shivanegowda, Puttegowda and Shivanegowda @ Chikkaidegowda succeeded to the suit properties. 3.5. It is further contented that first son of Yadeeregowda, namely Shivanegowda, died in his early age, leaving behind his two sons, namely Dodderegowda and Shivanegowda. 3.6. Said Shivanegowda being the grandson of Yadeeregowda, is the plaintiff and Dodderegowda and his wife Ningamma got five children among them, Eeramma died long back and her son is a party-defendant as defendant No.16. Second daughter namely Gowramma also died long back and her son is defendant No.17. Shivanegowda son of Dodderegowda died on 21.04.2017 leaving behind his wife – Devamma who is as defendant No.15 in the suit. Defendant Nos.18 and 19 are the daughters of Late Dodderegowda. 3.7. Second daughter namely Gowramma also died long back and her son is defendant No.17. Shivanegowda son of Dodderegowda died on 21.04.2017 leaving behind his wife – Devamma who is as defendant No.15 in the suit. Defendant Nos.18 and 19 are the daughters of Late Dodderegowda. 3.7. Further, it is contented that defendant Nos.9 to 12 are the legal representatives of Late Puttegowda who is the second son of common prepositus - Yadeeregowda. Defendant Nos. 1 to 8 are the legal representatives of third son - Shivanegowda @ Chikkaidegowda. 3.8. It is also contented that there was an oral partition earlier and in that partition, all the parties got equal share in respect of the suit properties. Plaintiff being the poor farmer and illiterate, believed his brother namely Dodderegowda and his son Shivanegowda and did not get mutated the revenue entries in his name. Plaintiff was a party in the suit filed by Shivanegowda son of Dodderegowda in OS No.10/2013; wherein the plaintiff took a specific contention that the suit properties are the joint family properties and it had fallen to the share of his father namely Shivanegowda who is the first son of common prepositus Yadeeregowda. 3.9. It is also contended that defendant No.20 filed a suit in OS No.346/2015 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction before the Principal Civil Judge, Kanakupura. 3.10. In the said suit, defendant No.20 admitted that his father namely Puttegowda who is second son of common prepositus Yadeeregowda, got the suit properties from his father – Yadeeregowda at an oral partition. But wrongly mentioned the extent of the land without any basis and therefore, there are disputes. 3.11. Defendant Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 filed another suit in O.S.No.385/2015 for permanent injunction on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakpura, which was filed against Shivanegowda, son of Dodderegowda, who is the husband of defendant No.15 and Devamma who is defendant No.15, was in respect of one of the items of the suit properties namely land in Sy. No.257/2 measuring 31 guntas. In the said suit also, the relationship of the parties is admitted and so also the oral partition that took place among the children of common prepositus - Yadeeregowda was propounded. 3.12. Defendant No.15 filed one more suit in OS No.432/2015 against defendant Nos.1 to 14. 3.13. No.257/2 measuring 31 guntas. In the said suit also, the relationship of the parties is admitted and so also the oral partition that took place among the children of common prepositus - Yadeeregowda was propounded. 3.12. Defendant No.15 filed one more suit in OS No.432/2015 against defendant Nos.1 to 14. 3.13. In the said suit also, details of some of the suit schedule properties were mentioned and the said suit is for declaration and permanent injunction. 3.14. Defendant No.7 in the said suit filed written statement wherein he admitted that Yadeeregowda is the common prepositus and relationship of Shivanegowda, Puttegowda and third son - Shivanegowda @ Chikkaidegowda was admitted. It is also admitted that there was an oral partition among the three children in the said suit. 3.15. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, plaintiff being the grandson of Yadeeregowda and being the first son of Shivanegowda son of Yadeeregowda, sought for the partition of the suit properties. 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.3 to 14 appeared before the Court and filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments and also specifically contented that there was an oral partition and therefore, second suit for partition is not maintainable and they also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint. 5. Plaintiff opposed the said application by filing detailed written statement. 6. Learned Trial Judge after taking note of rival contentions of the parties, heard the arguments of the parties and rejected the application. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, it is defendant Nos.3 to 14 in O.S.No.196/2017 have preferred the present revision petition challenging the application seeking rejection of the plaint and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that in view of the specific admission in the plaint itself, about the previous partition, the present suit for partition by the plaintiff is per se not maintainable and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that in view of the specific admission in the plaint itself, about the previous partition, the present suit for partition by the plaintiff is per se not maintainable and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that an admission in the plaint cannot be made as a ground to reject the plaint inasmuch as the oral partition is not suppressed by the plaintiff but it was not acted upon as there was no transfer of revenue entries nor the respective shares were divided and respective sharers were put into possession of the suit property. 10. Further, he would contend that no material fact is suppressed by the plaintiff. In the contrary, different suits filed by the sharers and the admissions made by them is detailed out in the plaint to establish the suit claim and therefore, learned Trial Judge was justified in dismissing the application. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that a long plaint not only contains the transactions that took place among the sharers of the common prepositus - Yadeeregowda but also mentions about the different suits that has been filed by the parties. 13. One common factor in the pleadings of all those suits is that Yadeeregowda being the common prepositus had three sons namely father of the plaintiff and two uncles of the plaintiff. There was an oral partition among the father of the plaintiff and his uncles after Yadeeregowda passed away. 14. It is also found from the material on record that grandmother of the plaintiff namely Devamma being the wife of Yadeeregowda had pre-deceased Yadeeregowda. 15. There are number of litigations pending with regard to the suit property. While some of the defendants have sought for injunction, few of the defendants have sought for declaration that it is their exclusive property. 16. Plaintiff has arraigned not only all the parties to the suit, but has also included all the items of the suit property and is seeking a wholesale partition among the sharers of the three children of Yadeeregowda. 17. 16. Plaintiff has arraigned not only all the parties to the suit, but has also included all the items of the suit property and is seeking a wholesale partition among the sharers of the three children of Yadeeregowda. 17. Therefore, the admission which is sought to be highlighted found in the plaint wherein there is a mention as to the earlier oral partition would not and should not come in the way of adjudicating the suit on merits inasmuch as the plaintiff has not suppressed the fact of oral partition; but it is the specific contention of the plaintiff that oral partition was not acted upon by the parties. 18. Under such circumstances, since the matter requires full-fledged trial to trash out the real controversy among the parties, rejection of the plaint by the Court below, which is impugned in the present revision petition, cannot be faulted with. 19. Accordingly following: ORDER i. Revision petition is hereby dismissed ii. The observations made by this Court, in this order, shall not affect the rights of the parties in the pending trial.