Writ Petition No. 31219 of 2025 · Karnataka High Court · 2026

2. SRINIVAS, SINCE DEAD BY LR’S SMT. SARASWATHAMMA WIFE OF LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

3. KUMARI MEGHA DAUGHTER OF LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-561 203

4. SMT. SARASWATHI WIFE OF LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

5. SMT.ANUSUYA - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29695 WP No. 31219 of 2025 HC-KAR D/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

6. SMT. UMA, D/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

7. SRI MANJUNATHA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S SMT. NAGALAKSHMI SINCE DEAD BY LR’S

8. MASTER VENU GOPAL.M S/O LATE VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

9. KUM. JANHAVI DAUGHTER OF LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, PETITIONER IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN BROTHER SRI.VENUGOPAL PETITIONER NO.4 TO 9 ARE R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-561 203 (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE) AND:

1. SRI N.RAMESH S/O. NARAYANADAS AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO. 33, 11TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003 …PETITIONERS - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29695 WP No. 31219 of 2025 HC-KAR

2. SMT. KAMINI.R.RAMNANI W/O SRI.N.RAMESH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.4, 3RD FLOOR, A.G.S. PLAZA, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE 560032 (BY SRI.M.S.SHYAMASUNDER, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/08/2025 ON IA NO. 15 IN OS NO. 205/2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.205/2011 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners to frame additional issues with cost of Rs.200/-, the petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29695 WP No. 31219 of 2025 HC-KAR

2. The trial Court has framed as many as 10 issues on

14.03.2014. The petitioner has come up with the instant application on 25.02.2025 for framing of additional issues which are as follows: “1. Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that the company was acquiring lands in and around Hosahalli and for commercial purpose and the plaintiffs father approached the company offering to sell the suit schedule property and company could not have purchased the agricultural land and as such they entered in to an agreement of sale dated

15.02.1998?

2. Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that the GPA was executed in favour of first defendant consciously after receiving full consideration and plaintiff cannot challenge the sale deeds in favour of the 2nd defendant?” The trial Court by order impugned had dismissed the application.

3. The trial Court while dismissing the application has observed that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of suit property by - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29695 WP No. 31219 of 2025 HC-KAR virtue of inheritance and to declare general power of attorney and sale deeds in respect to the suit property are not binding on them and for the relief of permanent injunction. The court observed that the proposed issues caste burden on defendant Nos.1 and 2 to state that they have acquired land and company could not have purchased the property, they have entered into agreement and they have to prove that after receiving of full consideration, general power of attorney was executed in favour of defendant No.1 and plaintiffs cannot challenge the sale deeds. The court observed that these issues are already covered in the issues framed in the suit i.e. Issue No.2 and 3. Accordingly the court felt that framing of these additional issues are not required.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court at any point of time can frame the issues and the reason that is given by the trial court is not correct and the additional issues what the petitioners have sought are not covered by the issues already framed.

5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29695 WP No. 31219 of 2025 HC-KAR case of Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple and another Vs Meenakshi Ammal and others1. He relied on paragraph Nos.16(1) and 16(2) which reads thus: “16.1. Firstly, Section 116 of the Evidence Act bars the Lessee/Licensee from constructing if not concocting a challenge vis-à-vis the title of the Lessor/Licensor, if it is the latter who has put the former in possession of the demised/licensed premises. In the case in hand, the first lease was executed by Shri Sethurama Chettiar and the renewal or the succeeding lease was between the its President, Shri Sethurama Trust through Chettiar, on the one hand, and the Tenants on the other. The Tenants, therefore, stood legally impeded and foreclosed from assailing the title of the Trust, as has been correctly concluded by the Trial Court, even though a specific Issue had not been struck in this context in O.S.5/78. There is no gainsaying that where parties are aware of the rival cases the failure to formally formulate an Issue fades into insignificance, especially when it is prominently present in connected matters and extensive evidence has been recorded on it without demur.

16.2 Secondly, on a proper perusal of the plaint, it ought to have been palpably evident that the Plaintiff/Tenant in O.S.5/78 feared dispossession from the demised premises because of what they considered to be an illegal transfer; but since all the Defendants had averred in their Written Statement that they had no intention of doing so, the suit ought not to have been dismissed but ought to have been decreed without more ado solely so far as the prayer of injunction was concerned. But, in the Trial Court the title to the leased land had become the fulcrum of the fight, owing to the pleadings of the Tenant in which it had repeatedly and steadfastly challenged the 1 (2015) 3 SCC 624 - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29695 WP No. 31219 of 2025 HC-KAR title of the Trust as well as the Transferees. The Tenant should not be permitted to approbate and reprobate, as per its whim or convenience, by disowning or abandoning a controversy it has sought to have adjudicated.”

6. It is submitted by the Senior Counsel that the Court has rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the evidence is let in and 10 issues were already framed. According to the trial court, the additional issues are already covered by issue Nos.2 and 3, which are already framed. Considering this particular observation by the trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this petition. However, the parties are not permitted to lead any further evidence and basing on the evidence available on record, the trial Court shall give finding on these two additional issues. Accordingly, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29695 WP No. 31219 of 2025 HC-KAR ii. iii. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14