Writ Petition No. 11013 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11186 WP No. 11013 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 11013 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. P. M. PUTTARAJU S/O LATE MOOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT PICHAKUNTARAPALYA VILLAGE HAMLET OF SHANUMANGALA BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 109. (BY SRI. SRINIVASAN T.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. H. LINGAPPA S/O LATE HONAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT HONIGANAHATTI VILLAGE THAVARAKERE PO AND HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-562 130. 2. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT THALAGHATTAPURA BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 109. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11186 WP No. 11013 of 2020 3. SMT SAROJAMMA W/O OF HANUMANTHARAYAPPA D/O HANUMAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT HONNIGANAHATTI VILLAGE THAVARAKERE PO AND HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-562 130.
Legal Reasoning
4. SRI HANUMAIAH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS 5. SMT THOLASAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH SINCE DEAD 6. SMT VIJAYAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA D/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 7. SRI NAGARAJU S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 8. SMT MANJULA W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA D/O HANUMAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 9. SRI NAGESHA S/O HANUMAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11186 WP No. 11013 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9 ARE R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 560 062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPI P.M.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 07.03.2025 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH; V/O DATED 07.03.2025 NOTICE TO R4, R6 TO R9 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 14.07.2020 PASSED ON I.A. NO.3 AND 6, BOTH APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC IN THE APPEAL BEARING RA.NO.2/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11186 WP No. 11013 of 2020 ORAL ORDER The petitioner who was the defendant No.1 in a suit in O.S.No.384/2010 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ramanagara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') and respondent No.3 in a regular appeal in R.A.No.2/2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') is before this Court being aggrieved by the Order dated 14.07.2020 passed by the First Appellate Court on an application filed by the respondent No.1 herein who was plaintiff No.3 before the Trial Court and appellant before the First Appellate Court granting prayer for amendment of the plaint. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the above suit in O.S.No.384/2010 was originally filed by one Smt. Ratnamma /respondent No.2 herein and Smt. Sarojamma/respondent No.3 herein against the petitioner herein/defendant No.1 and other family members as defendant Nos.2 to 7 for relief of partition and separate possession of their 1/7th share in the suit schedule property and for declaration that the deed of sale dated 11.11.2010 that had been executed by the defendant Nos.2 to 7 in favour of defendant No.1 as not binding on them. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11186 WP No. 11013 of 2020 During the pendency of the said suit, it appears that one H. Lingappa/ respondent No.1 herein had obtained a compromise decree dated 04.08.2011 passed in O.S.No.92/2011, which was purportedly arrived at between plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 to 7 in the suit in O.S.No.384/2010, pursuant to an agreement of sale dated 06.03.2007 alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.2 to 7 of O.S.No.384/2010 on one part and the said H. Lingappa on the other part. After having obtained the said compromise decree H. Lingappa/respondent No.1 herein got himself impleaded as defendant No.8. He filed written statement denying the plaint averments and also sought for dismissal of the suit. Thereafter, following issues and additional issues were framed: ISSUES (1) (cid:1)ಾ(cid:3)ಾ ಸ(cid:5)ತು(cid:8)ಗಳ(cid:11) (cid:3)ಾ(cid:12)ಯರ ಒಟು(cid:17) ಕುಟುಂಬದ (cid:22)(cid:23)ಾ(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:26)ತ ಸ(cid:5)ತು(cid:8)ಗಳ(cid:11) (cid:3)ಾ(cid:12)ಯರು ರುಜು(cid:3)ಾತು ಪ(cid:29)ಸು(cid:23)ಾ(cid:8)(cid:30)ೆ ೕ ? (2) (cid:23)ಾ:11.11.2010 2 "ಂದ #ೇ ಪ(cid:24)$(cid:3)ಾ(cid:12)ಗಳ(cid:11) 1#ೇ ಪ(cid:24)$(cid:3)ಾ(cid:12)%ೆ &ಾ(cid:29)’ೊ)(cid:17)ರುವ ಕ(cid:24)ಯ ಪತ(cid:24) ತಮ,ನು. ಬದ/ಪ(cid:29)ಸುವ0(cid:12)ಲ2(cid:3)ೆಂದು (cid:3)ಾ(cid:12)ಯರು ರುಜು(cid:3)ಾತುಪ(cid:29)ಸುವ(cid:30)ೇ ? (3) (cid:1)ಾ(cid:3)ಾ ಸ(cid:5)ತ(cid:8)ನು. 2 "ಂದ 7#ೇ ಪ(cid:24)$(cid:3)ಾ(cid:12)ಗಳ(cid:11) (cid:3)ಾ(cid:12)ಯ ಸಮ,$ಯ 3ೕ(cid:30)ೆ%ೆ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಒಳ$%ಾ4 1#ೇ ಪ(cid:24)$(cid:3)ಾ(cid:12)%ೆ &ಾ"(cid:1)ಾ5(cid:30)ೆಂದು ಪ(cid:24)$(cid:3)ಾ(cid:12) ಪತ(cid:24)ದ 8 ಮತು(cid:8) 9#ೇ ಕಂ(cid:29)’ೆಯ62 $78ರುವಂ(cid:23)ೆ 1#ೇ ಪ(cid:24)$(cid:3)ಾ(cid:12) ರುಜು(cid:3)ಾತುಪ(cid:29)ಸು(cid:23)ಾ(cid:8)(cid:30)ೆ ೕ ? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11186 WP No. 11013 of 2020 (4) (cid:3)ಾ(cid:12)ಯರು (cid:1)ಾ(cid:3)ಾ ಸ(cid:5)$(cid:8)ನ62 1/7 9:ೆ; ಪ<ೆಯಲು ಅಹ(cid:26)(cid:30)ೇ? (5) (cid:3)ಾ(cid:12)ಯರು (cid:1)ಾ(cid:3)ೆಯ62 ’ೋ"ರುವ ಪ"?ಾರ ಪ<ೆಯಲು ಅಹ(cid:26)(cid:30)ೇ ? (6) AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ CxÀªÁ rQæ? Additional Issue (Dt.10.03.2014) (1) Whether the 8th defendant proves that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property? Additional Issues (Dt.06.01.2015) (2) Whether the 1st defendant proves that the transposed plaintiff filed a false suit for specific performance and obtained a compromise by playing fraud? (3) Whether the 1st defendant proves that the plaintiff got himself transposed by playing fraud? 3. During trial of the said suit, said H. Lingappa/respondent No.1 herein who was defendant No.8 in the said suit got himself transposed as plaintiff No.3. There was no change in the pleadings either in the plaint or in written statement filed by the parties including that of the H. Lingappa/respondent No.1 herein. After the trial and contest, said suit came to be dismissed. The Trial Court while answering additional issue with regard to whether or not said H. Lingappa/defendant No.8 was a bonafide purchaser, had held the same against him. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11186 WP No. 11013 of 2020 4. Apparently being aggrieved by the same, he preferred a regular appeal in R.A.No.2/2018, describing himself as the plaintiff No.3 in the said suit. During the pendency of the said appeal, the present applications have been filed seeking amendment to the original plaint by incorporation of paragraph No.4 as well as deletion of original prayer column No.(a) and (b) and for insertion of additional prayer for declaring him to be the absolute owner of the suit property. 5. The First Appellate Court by the impugned order has allowed the said application permitting him to amend the plaint, which has given raise to the present petition by the defendant No.1. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 taking this Court through the records submits that the suit originally brought was for partition, separate possession and for declaration that the deed of sale dated 11.11.2010, which had been executed by defendant No.2 to 7 in favour of the petitioner herein, who was defendant No.1 as not binding on the plaintiff. That the suit on contest having been dismissed, the right, title and interest of the petitioner/defendant No.1 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11186 WP No. 11013 of 2020 have been crystallized. That said H. Lingappa/respondent No.1 herein who got himself transposed as plaintiff No.3 in the appeal filed by him against the said disposal of the suit had indeed denied the claim of the original plaintiffs. That the said H. Lingappa/respondent No.1 herein who admittedly entered into compromise decree subsequent to filing of the suit has now sought to convert the original suit of partition into a suit for declaration, a relief which is specifically sought against the present plaintiff and such a course of action by amending the original plaint is not permissible inasmuch as scope and nature of the suit would not only stands altered and changed but would completely erode the originality of the plaint. He further contends that the cause of action for the relief originally sought for and now being sought by the respondent No.1 are completely different and contradictory. As such, the First Appellate Court ought not to have allowed application. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 herein submits that H. Lingappa/respondent No.1 herein had entered into agreement of sale as far back as a 06.03.2007 and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11186 WP No. 11013 of 2020 entering of the compromise decree in O.S.No.92/2011 is only a consequence of the said agreement. That in view of suit having been dismissed in view of abandonment of the claim originally made by the plaintiffs in view of the compromise, it was necessary for him to have got himself transposed as plaintiff No.3 and contest the said suit and that since his claim of he being a bonafide purchaser having the negated by the Trial Court, it was but natural for him to have sought for larger relief for declaration of his title. He submits his original contention has not changed from the written statement to the amendment as sought for and that there has been no contradiction in the contentions raised by him in the written statement and in the plaint and in the amendment now sought for. Thus he submits that the First Appellate Court has committed no error warranting interference at the hands of this Court. 8. Heard and perused the records. 9. The facts as narrated above, do not require any reiteration. Originally suit filed by the plaintiff is for following reliefs: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11186 WP No. 11013 of 2020 ''a) For partition and separate possession of the schedule property and to put the plaintiffs in their 1/7th share. b) To divide the same by metes and bounds and put plaintiffs to their separate 1/7th share. c) To declare that the alleged sale deed said to have obtained the first defendant from the defendants 2 to 7 dated 11.11.2010 are not binding on the plaintiffs. d) For costs and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the suit, in the ends of justice.'' 10. The H. Lingappa/respondent No.1 herein who impleaded himself as defendant No.8 filed the written statement wherein apart from denying the plaint averments, he has sought for following reliefs: ''Wherefore, defendant No.8 prays that this hon'ble Court be pleased to dismiss the suit with cost, in the ends of justice.'' 11. The Trial Court having framed the issues as noted above, apart from dismissing the suit of the plaintiff has also held additional issue which was framed with regard to the case of H. Lingappa/respondent No.1 herein/defendant No.8 in the negative. As against the said finding H. Lingappa/respondent No.1 herein/defendant No.8 has preferred a regular appeal in R.A.No.2/2018, until this there may not be any impropriety or irregularity in the process adopted by the parties in redressing the grievances. However by the applications in I.A.Nos.3 and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11186 WP No. 11013 of 2020 6, the H. Lingappa/respondent No.1 herein/defendant No.8 is seeking amendment to the plaint as under: I.A.No.3: ''In the prayer column after para 15 it is stated that the defendant No. 8 be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs." To delete the same and after deletion the following words may kindly be inserted; "This Hon'ble court be pleased to order" ''Wherefore, the defendant No.8 prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to decree the suit declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property'' I.A.No.6: To delete the prayer (a) and (b) from the plaint prayer portion. And afterwards to insert the following PRAYER in plaint prayer portion. (b) to declare that plaintiff No. 3 has become the owner of the suit schedule property: In the written statement filed bythe 8th defendant at page 6 relief column. 'The mentioning 'wherefore the 8th defendant prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to dismiss the suit, in the ends of justice.' This fact will have to be dealted in its place to add the following: 'Wherefore, the 8th defendant (who is transposed as 3rd Plaintiff) prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to decree the suit, due to the changed circumstances.'' 12. Clearly, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the aforesaid amendment would have the effect of not only changing the nature and scope of the suit as originally brought but also would replace the original plaint with completely a fresh one now sought to be made out by the H. Lingappa/respondent No.1 herein. Cause of actions for suit as originally brought, and now for the amendment being sought is - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11186 WP No. 11013 of 2020 not only completely different and distinct but is also contrary and mutually destructive. Admittedly, deed of sale dated 11.11.2010 under which the petitioner herein claim to have purchased the property from original defendant Nos.2 to 7 is much prior in time, than the compromise decree dated 04.08.2011 by virtue of which said H. Lingappa/respondent No.1 herein claiming his right over the property. A course as adopted in the instant case to seek substantive to relief of declaration of title by a subsequent purchaser pendente-lite who is a defendant by converting the original suit of partition into declaration of his title is impermissible. His transposition as plaintiff No.3 earlier is of no consequences, as there was no change or alteration of the original plaint or his written statement. 13. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal the First Appellate Court except referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Shikharchand Jain vs. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and others reported in (1974) 1 SCC 675 has not adverted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has also not adverted to the nature of the original suit, its pleading and the prayer and the nature of the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:11186 WP No. 11013 of 2020 pleading and the prayer now sought to be incorporated into the plaint. Had the First Appellate Court adverted to that the result would have been otherwise. Beside, the same runs contrary to the very provisions of the law and the settled principles requiring amendment of the pleading. The order is therefore unsustainable and same requires to be set-aside. 14. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Impugned order 14.07.2020 passed by the First Appellate Court on application in I.A.Nos.3 and 6 is set aside. Applications filed in I.A.Nos.3 and 6 filed by the H. Lingappa/respondent No.1 herein/defendant No.8 are rejected. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23