R. PUTTNANJAMMA Vs. SHRI R. MADAIAH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal by the plaintiff is directed against an order allowing an I.A. filed by defendant No. 12 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and thereby holding that the suit is not maintainable under Order 23 Rule 3A read with Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. The respondents were the defendants in the suit. For convenience, parties will be referred by their rank in the Trial Court. Appellant -plaintiff filed the suit to pass a decree of partition and separate possession by declaring that she is entitled to 1/4th share in the 1/2 share of the branch of Revanna's family and to declare that the sale deeds dated 27.09.1982 and 18.12.2000 registered as document Nos. 3832, 9170 and 9171 in favour of defendant Nos. 10 and 12 as not binding on the share of the plaintiff and for grant of consequential reliefs.

(2.) IN the plaint, there is clear admission with regard to the plaintiff and her mother Nanjamma and defendants 1 to 3 having filed O.S. No. 2107/1988 for partition and separate possession against the branch of Puttamadaiah and the said suit having ended with a compromise on 23.07.1988. 12th defendant filed application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred under Rule 3A of Order 23 CPC. Learned Trial Judge having noticed the material averments in the plaint with regard to the alleged fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence etc. in the matter of entering into of the compromise in O.S. 2107/1988, the suit having instituted for passing of decree of partition of family properties, the same having been already decided in the compromise decree dated 23.07.1988, by taking note of the decisions in the cases reported in AIR 2006 SCW 3549 and ILR 2009 KAR 510, has held that the suit is not maintainable and as a consequence, has rejected the plaint.

(3.) SRI . V. Ramesha Babu, learned advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand made submissions in support of the view taken by the learned Trial Judge to reject the plaint and sought rejection of the appeal.