Writ Petition No. 14663 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19805 WP No. 14663 of 2018 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO.14663 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B R SOMASHEKAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1(a) SRI. B.S. NIRANJAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 1(b) SRI. B.S. CHANDRAKANTH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 1(c) SRI. B.S. SRIKANTH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.1(a) to 1(c) ARE SONS OF LATE SRI B.R.SOMASHEKHAR AND ALL ARE R/AT OLD NO.25 NEW NO.65, R.V. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. 4. SRI. B.R. RAMA MURTHY S/O LATE SRI. B.R. RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, R.V. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SUGUNA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19805 WP No. 14663 of 2018 HC-KAR 1(a) 1(b) SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA @ PUSHPA D/O. SRI GOPALAKRISHNA MAJOR SRI. C.G. NARAYANA S/O. SRI GOPALAKRISHNA MAJOR 1(c) SRI. C.G. BADRINATH S/O. SRI C.G. GOPALAKRISHNA MAJOR 1(d) 1(e) SRI. C.G. CHANDRASHEKARA S/O. SRI C.G. GOPALAKRISHNA SRI. C.G. MANJUNATH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1(e)(i) SMT.PADMAVATHI W/O LATE SRI C.G.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 1(e)(ii) MS.C.M.SUPRITHA D/O LATE SRI C.G.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 1(e)(iii) SRI C.M.HARSHITH S/O LATE SRI C.G.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS 1(e)(i) to 1(e)(iii) ARE R/AT NO.6, RAMAKRISHNA LANE SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 020. SRI. VINOD KUMAR BAID S/O. LATE SRI LALCHAND AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, SMT. PHOOL DEVI BAID W/O SRI. VINOD KUMAR BAID, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 2. 3. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19805 WP No. 14663 of 2018 HC-KAR 4. SRI. ADARSH KUMAR BAID S/O SRI. VINOD KUMAR BAID, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R2 TO R4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.25/2, 2ND SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION, 11TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. 5. 5(a) SRI. B.R. RAJAGOPAL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. B.R. PANKAJA W/O LATE SRI B.R. RAJAGOPAL SINCE DECEASED 5(b) IS THE ONLY LR AND HE IS ALREADY ON RECORD 5(b) SRI. B.R. MANOHAR S/O LATE SRI. B.R. RAJAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESPONDENTS 5(a) and 5(b) ARE R/AT NO.1242, 23RD CROSS 23RD MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560070. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. PRAKASH M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1(a to e) and R1(e)(i) to r1(e)(iii); R5(a) IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.12.2022, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5(b) IS HELD SUFFICIENT] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-A IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.03.2018 PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU ON IA.NO.25 IN O.S.NO.7782/2003 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 C.M. POONACHA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19805 WP No. 14663 of 2018 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER 1. The present writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs calling in question the order dated 14.03.2018 passed on I.A.No.25 in O.S. No.7782/2003 by the III Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru1 whereunder the Trial Court dismissed the application for amendment filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit in O.S. No.7782/2003 seeking for a declaration that the defendant has no right to alienate the suit properties and for an injunction. The title to the suit properties was claimed by the plaintiffs through Sri B.R.Gopalkrishna who was the father of the defendant and uncle of the plaintiffs. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit. Consequent to the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed issues. The evidence was adduced by the parties. At the stage of cross examination of DW.1, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.25 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 for amendment of the plaint. Vide the said application, para 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19805 WP No. 14663 of 2018 HC-KAR No.9(a) as also prayer No.(c) was sought to be inserted in the plaint. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The Trial Court vide order dated 14.03.2018 dismissed the application with cost of `5,000/-. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs. 3. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri.R.B.Sadashivappa for the petitioners and learned counsel Sri. Prakash M.Patil for respondent No.1 (a to e). 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that merely on the ground that I.A.No.25 was filed belatedly, the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the application for amendment. It is further contended that the defendant has alienated certain portions of the suit properties during pendency of the suit which required necessary averments to be made in the plaint to incorporate the alienations made and to seek for a suitable relief in that regard. It is further contended that in MFA No.3442/2004 the original defendant No.1 who was arrayed as respondent No.1 had submitted that she had no intention to alienate the suit properties and hence, this Court while considering an appeal - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19805 WP No. 14663 of 2018 HC-KAR filed challenging the rejection of the application for injunction passed by the Trial Court, also refused to grant injunction as sought for by the plaintiffs. Hence, it is contended that the said aspects were required to be averred in the plaint. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents justifies the order passed by the Trial Court and contends that the Trial Court while rejecting the application has adequately observed that any alienation made during the pendency of the suit would be hit by doctrine of lis pendence as contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 18823. 6. The contentions of both learned counsels have been considered and the material on record have been perused. The question that rise for consideration is: ‘Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment?’ 7. The Trial Court while considering I.A.No.25 has noticed that defendant No.1 alienated item No.3 property to defendant Nos.2 to 4 on 30.06.2005 and defendant No.1(e) alienated item No.2 property under registered Sale Deed dated 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘TP Act’ - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19805 WP No. 14663 of 2018 HC-KAR 30.03.2016 and additional defendant Nos.2 to 4 were impleaded in the suit on 04.08.2005. It is further noticed that principle of lis-pendence contained under Section 52 of the TP Act would stand attracted and they will be bound by the decree that will be passed in the suit. The Trial Court further recorded a finding that the proposed amendment is not required for adjudication of the suit and that the application has been filed only to drag on the proceedings since the suit is an old one. 8. It is relevant to note here that the suit is one for declaration where the plaintiffs have sought to claim right, title and interest in the suit properties on the basis of Will dated 20.04.1980 executed by Sri B.R.Gopalkrishna. The said B.R.Gopalakrishna is stated to have died on 26.08.1982. Vide I.A.No.25, apart from seeking to insert para No.9(a) to the plaint, the plaintiffs have also sought to insert prayer (c) with regard to a declaration that they are the owners of the suit properties under the Will dated 20.04.1980 executed by late B.R.Gopalkrishna. It is clear that as on the date of the suit itself, the plaintiffs were entitled to claim the said relief of declaration which has not been done. No averment has been - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19805 WP No. 14663 of 2018 HC-KAR made in the affidavit accompanying the application as to why the said relief could not be claimed as on the date of the suit as also the reason for the delay in claiming the said relief. The effect of the said relief of declaration would change the nature of the suit. 9. As regards the insertion on para No.9(a) in the plaint, the said averment merely indicates that the alienations were made during the pendency of the suit. The Trial Court was justified in recording a finding that the same is not necessary for adjudication of the question that arise for consideration in the suit and is further justified in noticing that the alienation made during the pendency of the suit would certainly be bound by the decree passed in the suit. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners while contending that a belated application for amendment is not liable to be rejected only on the ground of delay has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan V. Damodar Trimbak - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19805 WP No. 14663 of 2018 HC-KAR Tanksale (D) and Ors4 and Ram Niranjan Kajaria V. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and Ors5. 11. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as noticed above would not aid the case of the petitioners in this appeal. In the case of Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan4 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considered a fact situation wherein, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint so as make his claim more precise and to enable the Court to adjudicate the matter more satisfactorily. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded a finding that the amendment sought to be made was necessary to adjudicate the issues that arise for consideration. Similarly, in the case of Ram Niranjan Kajaria5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a case wherein an application for amendment of the Written Statement was filed 15 years after the Written Statement was filed, seeking to resile from the admissions made regarding relinquishment of the suit property. The said application having been rejected by the Trial Court, which was affirmed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, 4 AIR 2007 SC 2577 5 AIR 2016 SC *Supp) 1018 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19805 WP No. 14663 of 2018 HC-KAR the Division had allowed the application for amendment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the application for amendment since it held that admissions made in the Written Statement were sought to be withdrawn. However, an opportunity was afforded to the defendants to explain/clarify the admissions made in the Written Statement. Hence, the said judgments relied upon, are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 12. The Trial Court has rightly recorded a finding that the averments regarding the alienations during pendency of the suit properties are not necessary for the purpose of adjudicating the question arises for consideration in the suit. Further, it is also noticed that there is absolutely no averment made in the affidavit accompanying the application as to the reason why prayer (c) i.e., sought to be incorporated vide I.A. No.25 could not being made at the time of filing of the plaint. 13. In view of the discussion made above, the question framed for consideration is answered in the Affirmative.
Decision
14. The writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:19805 WP No. 14663 of 2018 HC-KAR 15. Needless to state that the suit being an old one, the parties shall cooperate with the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48