VARALAKSHMI Vs. K. MANJUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This revision petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 16/7/2022 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.5718/2016 on the file of the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting I.A.No.3 filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (b) read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioners-defendants before the Trial Court by filing an application is that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed dtd. 28/5/1980 executed by late Chikkanarasimhaiah in favour of second defendant is void in terms of the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in BASHEER AHMED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA. In the said suit, the plaintiffs alleged that they are the sons of defendant Nos.3 and 5 respectively. The defendant Nos.3 and 5 are the daughters of late Chikkanarasimhaiah and said Chikkanarasimhaiah died on 25/10/2010 leaving behind the only son defendant No.7 and two daughters, defendant Nos.3 and 5. They also contend that Chikkanarasimhaiah was granted occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal with respect to the land bearing Sy.Nos.143, 142, 159/4 (New No.340/1), 161 and 165 of Jodi Kempapura Agrahara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk by order dtd. 17/5/2007. The said Chikkanarasimhaiah become absolute owner of the above said land, as it is his self-acquired property. He died intestate, hence the estate of the deceased Chikkanarasimhaiah devolved on his children i.e., defendant Nos.3, 5 and 7. It is the claim that the suit property bearing Sy.No.340/1 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from the date of purchase. The same was sold vide registered sale deed dtd. 28/5/1980 by Chikkanarasimhaiah in favour of defendant No.2. Hence, the plaintiffs, who are no way legal heirs of deceased Chikkanarasimhaiah does not have any right and interest over the property and the very suit itself is not maintainable and there is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, prayed the Court to reject the suit.