HC says suppression of fact can be considered for exercising power under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC

The high court has said that suppression of a material fact and taking up a plea contrary to it can be considered by the court for exercising power under Order 6 Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The petitioner Lakshmamma, a resident of Thimmasandra village, Hosakote taluk, questioned the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, dismissing her suit for partition against 68 defendants in respect of 47 properties.

One Gummanna was the propositus and the petitioner claimed that the actual partition had not taken place. It was stated that the revenue records transferred in the names of three sons for convenience and the defendants denied her share in the suit properties.

Read | HC rejects brothers’ claim for hereditary priesthood on maternal lineage

The defendants denied this claim and informed the trial court that a partition had taken place on September 21, 1953, amongst the sons of Gummanna and that the petitioner had suppressed this fact. It was also contended that the petitioner and other legal heirs of her father had even sold 31 guntas of land in two transactions in 2008 and 2021 respectively. The trial court allowed the applications of the defendants and dismissed the suit for partition.

In the high court, the petitioner argued that merely because some defendants had sought deletion of their names and properties on the basis of alleged partition in 1953, her entire suit could not have been dismissed without a trial.

Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar noted that bringing a suit for partition in respect of all the properties was not only unnecessary but also scandalous. The language of Order 6 Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code is so plain that the court can exercise the power under this provision at any stage; the only requirement is that any matter in the pleading must appear to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, the court said.

“If in the sale deeds executed in the favour of K V Manjunath and Chennamma she (petitioner) mentioned about the partition and if in the plaint she avoided to state about the partition, it only shows her intention to reopen the partition of all the properties that belonged to joint family of Gummanna. If the plaintiff knew about the partition, in all fairness she must have disclosed it and sought partition only in respect of properties that were allotted to her father,” the court said.