SUSHILA Vs. VIJAYKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed challenging an order passed on IA.No. IX filed by the petitioner herein for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(A) r/w Section 151 of CPC and Rule 3A of Order 23 of CPC.

(2.) Vijaykumar, the first respondent/plaintiff, filed a suit seeking for partition and separate possession of his 1/32nd share in respect of suit A and B schedule properties. It was his case that suit schedule A properties were his ancestral and joint family properties and suit B schedule properties were also the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 11, which had been acquired by the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board and Southwestern Railways. It was his case that the suit properties had not been partitioned and that he was entitled to a legitimate share as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act .

(3.) In his plaint, he contended that defendant Nos.1 to 4 had filed O.S.No.545/2014 seeking for partition and separate possession of their respective shares and in the said suit, he had been arrayed as defendant No.5. However, during the pendency of the suit, the suit against him was dismissed on the basis of a memo filed by defendant Nos.1 to 4. It was stated that after he was deleted from the array of parties, defendant Nos.1 to 4 had entered into compromise behind his back and the said compromise decree did not bind him. He contended that with a view to get his separate and legitimate share, he had filed the present suit.