Writ Petition No. 14868 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23624 WP No. 14868 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 14868 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.RAMESH G S/O LATE. GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT, HARALUKUNTE VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE -560 068 (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA H.S, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. SMT. SUJATHA Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka W/O SRI. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT, V.KOTA PADAKALA KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 425. 2. SMT. SUNANDAMMA W/O SRI M. SRINIVAS REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT, ANKAIAH LAYOUT, NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE, KUDLU, SINGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 560 068. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23624 WP No. 14868 of 2025 HC-KAR 3. SMT SHOBHA W/O SRI. BALAKRISHNA REDDY.V AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUNNESHWARA LAYOUT, KUDLU MAIN ROAD, HARALAKUNTE VILLAGE, MADIWALA POST, BANGALORE - 560 068. 4. SRI. P.JAYARAM S/O SRI. PILLAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 5. SMT. RAJAMMA, W/O SRI. P.JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 6. SRI. J.AVINASH S/O SRI. P.JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT, NO. 130, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, KUDLU MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA POST, HARALUKUNTE VILLAGE, BANGALORE - 560 068. 7. SRI. V. RANGARAJU S/O LATE SARAKKI VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT, NO. 468, 8TH MAIN ROAD, A BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT, KOODLU VILLAGE, BANGALORE - 560 068. 8. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE SARAKKI VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23624 WP No. 14868 of 2025 HC-KAR NO.3 JAYAPRAGATHI LAYOUT, 'OM SRI NILAYA' KUDLU VILLAGE, BESIDES GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, BANGALORE - 560 068. 9. SRI. PRAKASH BABU, S/O LATE SARAKKI VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.3, RAMESH REDDY BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, KOODLU MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 068. 10. SMT. V. LALITHA, W/O S. KRISHNAPPA, D/O LATE SARAKKI VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO. 30, 1ST FLOOR, 20TH MAIN ROAD, VI CROSS, B.T.M. LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 068. 11. SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE SARAKKI VENKATAPPA AGED MAJOR, NO. 89, 3RD FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, A.E.C.S LAYOUT, 'A' BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 068. 12. SMT. SUDHA RANI, W/O LATE. RAJAREDDY, D/O LATE SARAKKI VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO. 3, RAMESH REDDY BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, KOODLU MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 068. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23624 WP No. 14868 of 2025 HC-KAR 13. M/S DS MAX PROPERTIES PVT LTD., COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND HAVING OFFICE AT, NO.1854, 17TH MAIN, 30TH B CROSS, HBR LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, 5TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 043. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY/ DIRECTOR SRI. SHIVASHANKAR CHIKKERI. (BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6; SRI. N. SURENDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R13) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER (ANNEXURE-A) DATED 28/03/2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.10 FILED IN O.S.NO.4330/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-2), AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION (I.A.NO.10), PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO AMEND THE PLAINT AS SOUGHT FOR AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23624 WP No. 14868 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Shri Vivekananda H.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Sunil S. Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 6 and Shri N. Surendar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.13. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff has instituted a suit for partition and certain consequential reliefs. In the proceedings, the petitioner files an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking amendment of the plaint, that comes to be rejected owing to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the cpc, which mandates due diligence at the time of filing of the suit or immediately, thereafter. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the application was preferred at the time when the trial was yet to commence and therefore the concerned Court ought to have allowed the application so filed, as it would in no way change the nature of the suit. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23624 WP No. 14868 of 2025 HC-KAR 4. Shri Sunil S. Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 6 would submit that what the petitioner - plaintiff is wanting to do now is completely do a volte-face with regard to the admission at paragraph 6. The said paragraph reads as follows: "6. It is respectfully submitted that, an area of measuring about 60 x 44 was given to the Plaintiff to construct a house and accordingly the Plaintiff is in possession of the same and the Defendant No.4 had obtained a unregistered GPA from Plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 at the time of the formation of the layout and based on the said GPA, behind the knowledge of the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3, the Defendant No.4 alleged to have sold some sites in the aforesaid revenue layout, and when the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 questioned the same. The Defendant No.4 told that he had Incurred some expenses during the marriage of Defendants No.2 and 3 and as such, he has used that money for expenditures at the time of marriage and he promised that in the remaining area which has not been sold, he will share equal rights over the same in favour of the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3. As such, the Plaintiff agreed for the same. The Defendant No.4 never paid any money till date either to the Plaintiff or Defendants 1 to 3." The amendment that is now sought by the petitioner in the application for replacing paragraph 6 with 6A is as follows: "2. REPLACE THE EXISTING PARA 6 WITH THE BELOW MENTIONED PARA 6A 6A. The Plaintiff states that, prior to the filing of the subject suit, when he made a routine visit to check the status of his extent of land, he found to his shock and surprise that there were certain construction activities - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23624 WP No. 14868 of 2025 HC-KAR carried out by Defendant No.8. On being further probed, it came to his knowledge that the Defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have entered into a JDA with Defendant No.8. which was preceded by a sale deed dated 01/07/2002 executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant No.6 as a GPA holder of Plaintiff and Defendant Nos 1 to 3. On a plain reading of the said sale deed dated 01/07/2002, it is seen that the Defendant No 4 has misrepresented that the Plaintiff has executed an unregistered GPA in his favour and based on the said purported GPA, the Defendant No.4 has entered into transactions. The said actions of the Defendant No.4 is ex-facie without authority as the Plaintiff has not executed any document, much less a GPA in favour of Defendant No.4. The Defendant No 4 has created and fabricated the document in order to take away the rights of the Plaintiff in the proportionate share that was agreed upon when a revenue layout came to be formed comprising of the extents of the Plaintiff, Defendant No 4 and 7. The Defendant No.4 and 7 reneged from whatever was agreed by putting up a false claim on the fraudulent unregistered GPA. It is broad as daylight that the signatures on the purported GPA dated 05/02/1992 is not of the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3. Needless to state, there was no earmarking of the extents in the, land bearing Sy No 42/1 as per the original compromise decree. Thereby, the entire layout, suffers from want of identification and each of the beneficiaries will have a subsisting right till such identification is crystalised. Moreover, an area measuring 60 X 44 feet on which the plaintiff has constructed a house and in possession is not disputed." If the admission at paragraph 6 is juxtaposed with the replacement that is sought, the petitioner-plaintiff is doing a complete volte-face. Therefore, the said amendment would undoubtedly change the nature of the relief, that is sought by the petitioner, as everything is now hinging upon a particular - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23624 WP No. 14868 of 2025 HC-KAR general power of attorney said to have been executed by the petitioner. 5. Insofar as the other amendment with regard to replacement of paragraph 4 with 4A, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection. 6. In the light of the said consent, I deem it appropriate to allow the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC only insofar as replacement of paragraph 4 with 4A. 7. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the direction be issued to the respondents to place on record the general power of authority that they are speaking of. 8. Shri Sunil S. Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 6 would submit that the very same issue was agitated by the petitioner in O.S.No.7008/2021, which the plaintiff has preferred an RFA before this Court, which is pending consideration. Be those submissions of the plaintiff as they are. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:23624 WP No. 14868 of 2025 HC-KAR 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i) The petition is allowed-in-part. ii) The order dated 28.03.2025 stands quashed only insofar as it does not permit amendment to paragraph 4 by replacing it with 4A. iii) Insofar as the claim for replacement of paragraph 6A with 6 stands rejected. iv) It is open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as available in law before the concerned Court. Ordered accordingly. [ JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT:BHK Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE