IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT C.R.P.No.511 OF 2016 BETWEEN 1. SMT. MUNIAKKAYYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI. MUNIANJINAPPA @ CHIKKANNA, 2. SRI.C.ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI.MUNIANJINAPPA @ CHIKKANNA, BOTH RESIDING AT NO.189, 25TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 065.
3. SRI.C.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI.MUNIANJINAPPA @ CHIKKANNA, WORKING AS TEACHER AT GIRLS PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, KOLAR – 563 101.
4. SRI.C.MUNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI.MUNIANJINAPPA @ CHIKKANNA, R/AT CHIKKAKEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.K.J.JAGADEESHA FOR SRI. G.PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATES) AND 1. SMT. SHARADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O MUNEGOWDA, D/O LATE SRI.MUNIANJINAPPA @ CHIKKANNA, R/AT NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK – 560 300.
2. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O LATE APPANNA, D/O LATE SRI.MUNIANJINAPPA @ CHIKKANNA, R/AT SADENAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 560 300.
3. SMT. SAROJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, D/O LATE SRI.MUNIANJINAPPA @ CHIKKANNA, R/AT RABBANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNADANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.
4. SMT. LALITHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O SONNEGOWDA, D/O LATE SRI.MUNIANJINAPPA @ CHIKKANNA, R/AT MALAMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SHIDDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101.
5. SMT. ANASUYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O LOKANATH, D/O LATE SRI.MUNIANJINAPPA @ CHIKKANNA, R/AT AGALAGURKI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK – 562 101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.VIJAYASHEKARA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 & R5;
R4 SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2016, PASSED IN O.S.NO.783/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING I.A. NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners-defendants are before this Court, assailing the order dated 21.11.2016 passed on I.A. No.6 filed under order VII Rule 11 of CPC in O.S No.783/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli.
2. The respondents-plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties and for allotment of 1/9th share. The defendants filed an application I.A. No.6 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint. The Court below under the impugned order rejected the said application against which the defendants are before this Court in this civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants and learned counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs. Perused the petition papers.
4. It is settled position of law that only the plaint averments are to be looked into and written statement filed by the defendants would be irrelevant while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The copy of the plaint is produced along with this petition. On going through the plaint averments, it is seen that the plaintiffs being the daughters of one late Munianjinappa @ Chikkanna have sought for partition of the suit schedule properties. Plaint averment would indicate that the partition has not taken place between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The suit schedule properties are ancestral and they are in joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaint allegation is that defendants 1 to 4 are trying to alienate the suit schedule properties, which are in joint possession and enjoyment. Cause of action said to have arisen on 18.8.2015 on coming to know the change in revenue records and 6.10.2015, when partition was refused. Of course, it is for the plaintiffs to prove that they are entitled for partition and share in suit schedule properties. The impugned order would not suffer either from jurisdictional or material irregularity. The Court below has rightly rejected the application. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
Accordingly, civil revision petition is rejected.
Cs CT:SN Sd/-
JUDGE