RAMAKRISHNA Vs. GAANASHREE

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) This petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 13/6/2023, passed on I.A.No.11 in O.S.No.348/2013, on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, dismissing I.A.No.11 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 of CPC imposing cost of Rs.2,000.00.

(3.) The contention of the defendants before the Trial Court by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is that without invoking any specific provision, the same can be entertained in the afore circumstances. It is contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants seeking partition from defendant No.3 of his 1/3rd share. The suit is filed for the relief of partition that schedule properties are ancestral properties and as per the partition deed dtd. 10/6/1996, the schedule properties were transferred to defendant No.1, who had filed the application before the Trial Court. The revenue records are also standing in the name of defendant No.1. The plaintiff claims that she is the daughter of defendant No.3 and contend that the schedule properties are not the ancestral properties. The claim made by the plaintiff is barred by law because under mitakshara law, whenever a male ancestor inherits any property from any of his paternal ancestors upto three degrees above him, then his male legal heirs upto three degrees below him, would get an equal right as coparceners in that property and she is not having any right in respect of the property and Sec. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act ('the said Act' for short) attracts and not Sec. 6 of the Act and hence prayed the Court to reject the plaint.