SMT. PAPAMMA v. SRI MANJUNATH & Ors

#1. SRI MANJUNATH S/O GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

#2. SMT. ANNEMMA W/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

#3. SMT. KAMALAMMA D/O LATE GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26402 WP No. 21386 of 2024 HC-KAR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT DODDGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

#4. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O ADESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS KODIGEHALLI NEAR VENKATARAMANASWAMY TEMPLE YELAHANAKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 092.

#5. SMT. SUJATHAMMA W/O KRISNNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT RUBBANABALLI KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

#6. SMT. ANITHA KUMARI W/O SURESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT SEEKAYANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

#7. SMT. PAPAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

#8. SRI SRINIVASAGOWDA S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26402 WP No. 21386 of 2024 HC-KAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

#9. SRI MUNJUNTHA GOWDA S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

#10. SRI ANJINGEGOWDA S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

#11. SMT. MANGALAGOWRI D/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

#12. SRI RAJAGOPAL S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

#13. SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O MUNIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS MARENAHALLI VILLAGE TUBAGERE HOBLIK DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

#14. SMT. H.NAGARATHNAMMA W/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO. 60, OMB R.LAYOUT - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26402 WP No. 21386 of 2024 HC-KAR 4TH ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, BANASAVADI BENGALURU - 43.

#15. SMT. SHIVARATHANAMMA W/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HEGGADADEVANAPURA MAKALI POST, ALUR ROAD NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT.

#16. SMT. AMAYAMMA W/O LATE VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

#17. SMT. MANJULA W/O CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

#18. SRI VIJAYA PRAKASH S/O LATE VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

#19. SRI UDAYA PRAKESH W/O LATE VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

#20. SRI HEMANTHA S/O LATE VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

#21. SMT. VEENA W/O SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26402 WP No. 21386 of 2024 HC-KAR

#22. SMT. USHA W/O AMBARISH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

#23. SRI K.M.VENKATESHA S/O GANIGAL MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.16 TO 23 ARE R/AT KODIGEHALLI SAHAKARANAGARA POST YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 092.

#24. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA W/O BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT SHANAPPANAHALLI KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

#25. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O DODDANAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

#26. SRI NANJEGOWDA S/O DYAVANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26402 WP No. 21386 of 2024 HC-KAR BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

#27. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S/O HANUMANTHAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT ARUVANHALLI KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

#28. SMT. MANJULA W/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT CHIKKAGOLLAHALLI KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

#29. SMT. SANDYA W/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT LINGANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

#30. SRI THIMMAIAH S/O DODDANARAYANAPPA RESIDING AT THARABANHALLI JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT.

#31. SRI SUBRAMANI S/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26402 WP No. 21386 of 2024 HC-KAR

#32. SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE BYARAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK.

#33. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQISITION OFFICER OFFICE AT I.T.I R, KIADB 1ST FLOOR, VITC BUILDING NEAR SAINT MARTHA’S HOSPITAL NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

#34. SRI B.NANJUNDEGOWDA S/O LATE JANAPPA AND SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT BYRADENAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANANDA A., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R34 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 02.07.2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 29.06.2024 PASSED ON IA.NO.77 IN OS 1256/2006 BY THE III ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI C/C.II ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, PRODUCED VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:26402 WP No. 21386 of 2024 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner-defendant No.8 is before this Court calling in question an order dated 29-06-2024 passed on I.A.No.77 in O.S.No.1256 of 2006 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.

#2. Heard Sri S R Sreeprasad, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Ananda A, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

#3. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 institutes a suit for partition in O.S.No.1256 of 2006. The case has traveled all over. The coordinate bench of this Court in RSA No.93 of 2012 disposed on 19-03-2019 had directed the concerned Court to dispose the suit within an outer limit of 10 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order dated 19-03-2019. Not 10 months, but 60 months have passed by, but the suit is still pending, as applications after applications are being filed either by the plaintiff or by the defendants. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:26402 WP No. 21386 of 2024 HC-KAR

#4. The issue is whether, the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant No.8 should be allowed or otherwise?

#5. The learned counsel for petitioner would fairly submit that the application is filed to delete certain admissions made in the written statement and incorporate certain amendments pursuant to the application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC filed by the plaintiff being allowed and an additional issue being framed before the concerned Court.

#6. The learned counsel for respondents would submit that if the admissions are not permitted to be deleted, he would have no objection for the amendment to be allowed.

#7. In the light of the said submission, without going into the veracity of what is sought for, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition permitting the petitioner to amend the written statement only insofar as inclusion of paragraphs and not to the exclusion of the admissions that are already made in the written statement, in the light of the fact that such - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:26402 WP No. 21386 of 2024 HC-KAR inclusions are not opposed to by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

#8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) Order dated 29-06-2024 passed on I.A.No.77 in O.S.No.1256 of 2006 stands quashed. (iii) The order which rejects inclusion of amendments to the written statement stands allowed and the order which rejects the exclusion of admissions from the written statement stands sustained. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66 CT:SS