Writ Petition No. 13392 of 2019 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19487 WP No. 13392 of 2019 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 13392 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMANAND S/O LATE SRI VEERAHANUMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, 1. SMT.JAYAMMA, W/O LATE SRI.RAMANAND AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. SMT.MANJULA D/O LATE SRI.RAMANAND AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 3. SRI.R.RAMESH S/O LATE SRI.RAMANAND AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 4. SRI.R.RAGHU S/O LATE SRI.RAMANAND AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.84/2, 1ST MAIN ROAD, THIMMAIAH GARDEN, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. BHARGAV G, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE SRI VEERAHANUMAIAH Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19487 WP No. 13392 of 2019 HC-KAR SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, 1. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.57/4, 8TH CROSS, YELLAPPA GARDEN MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-570 003. 2. SRI.RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD H S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.87, GARDEN MUNIYAPPA COMPOUND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD DODDAKALLASANDRA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-570 060 3. SMT.MANJULA D/O LATE SRI.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.58/4, 8TH CROSS YELLAPPA GARDEN MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-570 003. 4. SMT.VEENA.H D/O LATE SRI.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.1, 2ND MAIN, NEAR JATAKA STAND GUTTAHALLI BENGLAURU-570 003. 5. SRI.VAJRAMUNI S/O LATE SRI.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.58/4, 8TH CROSS, YELLAPPA GARDEN, MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-570 003 6. SRI.MAYANNA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19487 WP No. 13392 of 2019 HC-KAR S/O LATE SRI VEERAHANUMAIAH R/O THALAGHATTAPURA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 060. 7. SRI.RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE SRI VEERAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O THALAGHATTAPURA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 060. 8. SRI.R.SRINIVASA S/O LATE SRI RAMANAND AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO.13, SWWT COLONY 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, SANDEEP UNNI KRISHNAN MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064. (BY SMT P V KALPANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 R5 TO R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 29.03.2021) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.02.2019, PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL IN JUDGE, O.S.NO.2833/2005 ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER O.6 R.17 CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-G, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS UNDER 0.6 R.17 CPC AND ETC. RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU BENGALURU THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19487 WP No. 13392 of 2019 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER 1. The present writ petition is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 calling in question the order dated 20.02.2019, passed by the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru1 on I.A. dated 28.11.2018 filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 in O.S. No.2833/2005 wherein, the application for amendment filed by the plaintiffs has been allowed. 2. The factual matrix in a nutshell leading to the present writ petition are that the predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 73 filed a suit in O.S. No.2833/2005 for partition and separate possession. The original plaintiff and defendant No.1 were the sons of one Veerahanumaiah and the 2nd defendant in the suit was the wife of Veerahanumaiah. The original plaintiff and defendant No.1 i.e., Veerahanumaiah had four other siblings, they being the sons of one Siddappa. The suit for partition was contested by defendant No.1 by filing written statement. The 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘original plaintiff’) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19487 WP No. 13392 of 2019 HC-KAR defendant No.2 also filed a separate Written Statement. The Trial Court framed five issues. The plaintiffs filed I.A.1 on 28.11.2018 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w 151 of CPC seeking to insert para Nos.12 to 17 in the plaint and also seeking to amend the schedule by inserting schedule item Nos.3 to 12 to the plaint. The said application was objected to by the legal representatives of the deceased -defendant No.1. The Trial Court vide its order dated 20.02.2019, allowed the said application. Being aggrieved, the writ petition writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri G. Bhargav for the petitioners and learned counsel Smt. P.V. Kalpana for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the application for amendment is filed belatedly inasmuch as the suit is one for partition filed in the year 2005. The application for amendment has been filed in the year 2018 and that the said application being belated is liable to be rejected. It is further contended that from a reading of the plaint itself it is forthcoming that the plaintiffs were aware of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19487 WP No. 13392 of 2019 HC-KAR properties that are sought to be included in the application for amendment and that the plaintiffs not having sought for adequate reliefs with regard to the said properties at the time of filing of the suit, valuable rights have accrued to the defendants which has been taken away by virtue of allowing of the application for amendment. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs contends that the defendant No.1 at para No.12 of his Written Statement had taken a contention that all the properties have not been included in the suit. Hence, it is contended that by virtue of the amendment, plaintiffs merely sought to include all the properties which are liable for partitioned. It is further contended that the Trial Court was justified in allowing the application and the same ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition. 6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the material on record has been perused. The questions that arise for consideration is: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19487 WP No. 13392 of 2019 HC-KAR ‘Whether the order passed by the Trial Court in allowing the application for amendment is erroneous and liable to be interfered with?’ 7. Admittedly, the original plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the sons of Sri Veerahanumaiah who was the son of Siddappa alias Siddegowda. The suit for partition has been filed in respect of the joint family properties which according to the plaintiffs fell to the share of Veerahanumaiah. In the Written Statement at para No.12, the defendant No.1 had taken a specific contention that all the properties have not been included in the suit for partition. 8. In the application for amendment, the plaintiffs have sought to include para Nos.12 to 17 and also to include properties item Nos. 3 to 12 in the schedule. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff has deposed that his father and uncles were poor and illiterate persons and was not aware of the legal procedures and all the ancestral properties were not included. It is further deposed that the legal representatives of defendant No.1 had admitted in the cross examination that the suit - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19487 WP No. 13392 of 2019 HC-KAR properties are the ancestral properties. It is also deposed that the previous counsel has not pleaded all the paras as stated in the application. 9. The Trial Court considering the application filed by the plaintiffs has recorded a finding that non-allowing of the application would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid the same and to determine the real issues between the parties, the application is liable to be allowed. 10. It is forthcoming that vide the application for amendment, certain properties are sought to be included in the suit for partition and the relevant pleas with regard to the said properties are proposed to be averred in the plaint vide the said application. Although, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amendment is belated and a valuable right is accrued in favour of the defendants, it is relevant to note that the plaintiffs have not sought for any additional relief in the suit. Vide the application, plaintiffs have merely sought to include certain properties in the suit for partition which the plaintiffs are entitled to do at any stage of proceedings. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19487 WP No. 13392 of 2019 HC-KAR 11. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submits that pursuant to the impugned order dated 20.12.2019, the plaintiffs have carried out the amendment and also adduced further evidence. 12. It is clear from the aforementioned that there is no demonstrable hardship caused to the defendants and it is open to the defendants to contest the suit on merits by putting forth all the contentions available to them under law. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to rely upon the various judgments inter alia that the parties being illiterate is not a valid ground to allow an application for amendment, as also that an amendment which seeks to introduce a new or different case is liable to be rejected. The principles governing the allowing or rejection of an application for amendment are well settled as has been enunciated in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, since the plaintiffs are merely seeking to include certain properties in the suit for partition and the averments proposed to be made in the application are insofar as the properties that is now sought to be included, the judgments - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19487 WP No. 13392 of 2019 HC-KAR sought to be relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, will not aid the case of the petitioners. 14. In view of the aforementioned, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the impugned order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Trial Court in allowing the application for amendment is in any manner erroneous and is liable to be interfered with the present writ petition. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the Negative. 15. Hence, the above writ petition stands disposed of. It is open for the petitioners to contest the suit for partition on its merits by urging all the contentions available to the petitioners under law. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37