RATHNAMMA Vs. NARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 2/4/2019, passed in R.A.No.15058/2017, on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case discloses that the appellants had filed a suit before the Trial Court seeking the relief of partition and not to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. The defendant No.4 filed I.A.No.5 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.5, it is contended that the plaint is liable to be rejected as it does not disclose the cause of action and the same is barred by law. It is contended in the affidavit that the plaintiffs are the daughters of defendant No.1 Narayanappa. The plaintiffs themselves have stated that defendant No.1 colluded and mortgaged the property to one J.L. Krishnappa on 27/9/1990 and later executed a sale deed in favour of Sri Krishnappa. The sale deed which the plaintiffs have referred is dtd. 8/6/1991. It is clear that the father of the plaintiffs has sold the suit schedule property under the sale deed of the year 1991. The plaintiffs have no right over the suit schedule property under Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 as the alienation is prior to 20/12/2004. There is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit and hence the plaint is liable to be rejected.