LAKSHMAMMA Vs. A.SHAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.2230/2021 has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order dtd. 15/2/2023 on I.A.Nos.5 to 8.

(2.) Necessary facts are as follows: Suit is for partition against 68 defendants in respect of 46 items of the property. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that Gummanna was the propositus and he had 3 sons namely Anjinappa, G.Nanjappa and Sanjeevappa, and 2 daughters namely Hanumakka and Sanjeevamma. Plaintiff is the daughter of Sanjeevappa and she stated that the suit properties were ancestral joint family properties; though there had not taken place actual partition amongst the children of Gummanna, the revenue records came to be transferred in the names of 3 sons for convenience. The defendants denied her share in the suit properties and therefore she brought the suit for partition. The defendant No.7 filed written statement denying the plaintiff 's right to claim partition in view of a partition having taken place on 21/9/1953 amongst the sons of Gummanna. In the course of proceedings defendants No.7 and 14 filed applications under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC. If defendant No.7 sought to strike out item Nos.1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 26, 28 to 30, 34, 36, 37, 39, 43 and 44 to 46; defendant No.14 sought striking out the properties described as item No.2 to 5, 7, 14, 19 to 23, 35, 38 and 42 of the plaint schedule. Defendants No.7 and 14 also filed 2 more applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to delete from the suit the defendants No.1, 3 to 16, 30, 54 and 67. The defendants No.8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 30, 43, 54 and 67 appeared and filed memo adopting the applications, I.A.Nos.5 to 8 filed by defendants No.7 and 14. In the affidavits filed along with the applications they stated that the plaintiff had brought the suit for partition by suppressing the earlier partition which had taken place on 21/9/1953 amongst the sons of Gummanna and infact after the said partition the plaintiff and other legal heirs of her father sold a property measuring 11 guntas in survey No.53/1 to K V Manjunath on 11/5/2008 and another land measuring 20 guntas in survey No.48 to Chennamma on 11/10/2021. In both sale deeds, the plaintiff has stated about partition dtd. 21/9/1953. The plaintiff is aware of the earlier partition, yet she has filed a suit in respect of all the properties that belonged to Gummanna. For these reasons the properties mentioned in the applications are not available for partition and the pleadings in respect of those properties are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and hence those properties are to be struck out from the plaint. For the same reason the presence of the defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 to 16, 30, 54 and 67 is not necessary and they are to be deleted.

(3.) The plaintiff filed statement of objections to the applications. The court below having heard both the sides allowed the applications and aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff has filed this Writ Petition.