The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22417 W.P. No.18622/2019 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.18622/2019 (GM-CPC) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka BETWEEN: SMT. YELLAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S. 1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE K. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 2. SRI. T. SIDDARAJU S/O LATE K. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 3. SRI. T. RAGHU S/O LATE K. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 4. SMT. T. SUNITHA D/O LATE K. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. 5. SMT. T. VIDYA D/O LATE K. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT. NO.16/1, RENUKA NAGAR MALLAPPA ROAD DODDABALLAPURA ROAD NELAMANGALA-562123.
Legal Reasoning
SRI. K. RAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S. 6. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE K. RAMAIAH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22417 W.P. No.18622/2019 HC-KAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 7. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE K. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 8. SMT. SARASWATHI .R D/O LATE K. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 9. SMT. MAMATHA .R D/O LATE K. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. PETITIONERS NO.6 TO 9 ARE R/AT. NO.128, 2ND CROSS BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560070. (BY SRI. RAJANNA L, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. SIDDAIAH S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. SRI. HANUMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S. 2. SMT. ERAMMA W/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 3. SMT. YELLAMMA D/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 4. SMT. RAJAMMA D/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 5. SRI. GANGARAJA S/O LATE HANUMAIAH …PETITIONERS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22417 W.P. No.18622/2019 HC-KAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 6. SRI. SIDDAGANGAIAH S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/A KATANAPALYA MOTAGONDANAHALLI DHAKLE SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. SRI. YELLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S. 9. SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 8. SRI. RAVI S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 9. SRI. NAGARAJA S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 10. SMT. RENUKAMMA D/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. PRESENTLY RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 10 ARE R/AT. NO.48/1, 4TH MAIN BYRASANDRA, 1ST BLOCK JAYANAGAR EAST BENGALURU-560001. 11. SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. DASEGOWDANAPALYA MARAKUPPE POST SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22417 W.P. No.18622/2019 HC-KAR SRI. GANGACHOWDAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S. 12. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE GANGACHOWDAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S RESPONDENT NO.13 AND 14 HEREIN. [AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER OF HON'BLE COURT DTD:06.10.2023]. 13. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE GANGACHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 14. SMT. THIMMAKKA D/O LATE GANGACHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.12 TO 14 ARE R/AT. NO.841, 8TH CROSS 7TH MAIN, KAVERINAGAR BSK 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560070. 15. SRI. K. SIDDA S/O LATE KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A NO.27, MODI ROAD D J HALLI, BENGALURU-560045. 16. SRI. K. RAJA S/O LATE KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/A C/O K. RAMAIAH NO.16/1, RENUKA NAGAR MALLAPPA ROAD DODDABALLAPURA ROAD NELAMANGALA-562123. 17. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22417 W.P. No.18622/2019 HC-KAR 18. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.15 & 18 ARE R/A NO.13, 14TH CROSS NEAR VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BEGALURU-560011. 19. SMT. CHOWDAMMA D/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 20. SMT. HULLURAMMA D/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 21. SMT. THIMMAKKA D/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 22. SMT. HANUMAKKA D/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 23. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 19 TO 23 ARE R/A KATANAPALYA VILLAGE MOTAGONDANAHALLI DHAKLE SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159. (BY SRI. T.C. SATHISH KUMAR, ADV., FOR R11 R1, R2, R5, R6, R20 AND R21 SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFICIENT V.C.O.DTD:17.10.2019 R3, R4, R5, R10, R12, R15 TO R19, R22 & R23 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V.C.O.DTD:08.04.2025) …RESPONDENTS - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22417 W.P. No.18622/2019 HC-KAR THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.170/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MAGADI. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT, QUASHING/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2019 ON I.A.NO.16 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.170/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MAGADI, VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION VIDE ANENXURE-D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: for in O.S. "(a) Call No.170/2014 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi. the records Issue a writ of certiorari or order (b) or direction, in the nature of a writ, quashing/ set-aside the Order dated 12/03/2019 on I.A. No.16 filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S. No.170/2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi, vide Annexrue-G to the Writ Petition, consequently allow the said the application, vide Annexure-D interest of justice. in (c) Pass such other orders, as the petitioners are entitled to in the facts and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22417 W.P. No.18622/2019 HC-KAR circumstances of the case, including the costs of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Sri.Rajanna L., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint which came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the stand now taken in the proposed amendment is contrary to the stand taken in the plaint. Further, that the proposed amendment touches upon the cross-examination of DW.2 and the later stand in the proposed amendment is contrary to the earlier stand of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioners filed a suit for a relief of declaration that the two sale deeds are not binding and permanent injunction and now the petitioners have filed an application to seek additional prayer of possession which is consequential to the main prayer. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by permitting the amendment. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22417 W.P. No.18622/2019 HC-KAR 3. Per contra, Sri.T.C.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.11 supports the impugned order, filed the statement of objections to the writ petition and submits that the petitioners and others have filed O.S.No.497/2014 seeking relief of partition. In the said suit, in respect of suit schedule 'A' property the decree came to be passed and in respect of suit schedule 'B' property, suit was dismissed. It is submitted that schedule 'B' property in O.S.No.497/2014 is the subject matter of the suit in question. Hence, the very suit filed by the petitioners itself is not maintainable. It is submitted that after the cross-examination of the defendants/witnesses the present application is filed which is highly belated and it takes a contradictory stand. The trial Court considered the same and rightly rejected the same which does not call for interference. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22417 W.P. No.18622/2019 HC-KAR respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioners field O.S.No.170/2014 seeking a relief of declaration to declare the sale deeds dated 14.06.1956 and 06.09.2007 are not binding and null & void and permanent injunction. Respondent No.11 is the contesting respondent who is the purchaser of the suit schedule property, filed a detailed written statement. Parties have adduced the evidence, at that stage, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the CPC seeking for amendment of the plaint, seeking incorporation of additional prayer which reads as under: "To direct defendant No.5 to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs." 6. To support the said plea, the petitioners have made averments in the proposed amendment at paragraph No.13(a). The trial Court dismissed the said - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:22417 W.P. No.18622/2019 HC-KAR application by recording the finding that the petitioners have taken a stand in the plaint that entire possession of the suit schedule property is with them and contrary to the said stand now the application is filed. Further, the proposed amendment would touch upon the cross- examination of DW.2 and is contradictory. It is not in dispute that the suit is of the year 2014 and the proposed amendment is filed in the year 2018, which is belated as well as filed after the cross-examination of the defendants/witnesses. There is no dispute that the petitioners have taken a stand in the plaint that the revenue entries in respect of the suit schedule property is continued in the name of the plaintiffs and possession is with them. After taking note of the stand taken by the purchaser, the petitioners intend to seek a relief of possession. However, in my considered view, seeking a relief for possession in a suit filed for declaration is consequential relief and deserves to be allowed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:22417 W.P. No.18622/2019 HC-KAR 7. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the present application is filed after the cross-examination of the witnesses at the belated stage. In my considered view, the admissions recorded in the cross-examination of DW.2 and DW.5 would have some bearing while deciding the suit. However, the trial Court can take note of the admissions, if any, and the subsequent amendment sought by the petitioners and if necessary, draw the necessary inference while deciding the suit. The trial Court has also recorded the finding that the issue No.4 is casted on the plaintiffs to prove their possession. In my considered view, in view of the later amendment, the trial Court is required to recast the issue with regard to the possession and record the finding by providing sufficient opportunity for the parties to the proceedings. Insofar as the contentions of the respondent No.11 that the petitioners had filed O.S.No.497/2014 which came to be rejected in respect of the said suit is concerned, the same is always open for respondent No.11 to take appropriate steps in accordance - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:22417 W.P. No.18622/2019 HC-KAR with law. Including filing of an appropriate application before the pending suit for rejection of suit. The present application is filed highly belated and that too after the evidence recorded against the petitioners. I am of the considered view that the application deserves to be allowed on certain terms. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 12.03.2019 passed on IA.No.16 in O.S.No.170/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.16 is allowed subject to the petitioners paying cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to respondent No.11/defendant No.5. iii) The amended plaint shall be filed by the petitioners within one week from the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:22417 W.P. No.18622/2019 HC-KAR date of receipt of the copy of this order. Thereafter, the trial Court shall regulate the proceedings by providing an opportunity to the defendants to file additional written statement, if any. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25