Allowed

S Appanna v. Smt. Huchchamma

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2014WP/21087/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, the petitioner challenged an order allowing a plaintiff's amendment application to elaborate claims of adverse possession after final arguments were filed, arguing the amendment was an afterthought prejudicial to the defendant.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 15.6.2012 allowing the amendment is set aside and the court below directed to proceed in accordance with law.

S Appanna Vs Smt. Huchchamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 21087 of 2012 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. S. Appanna, Son of Late Subbaiah @ Subbanna, Aged about 78 years, Residing at No.315, 9^th A Cross, Jakkur, Bangalore – 560 064.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri. P.M. Siddamallappa, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Smt. Huchchamma, Wife of Late Krishnappa, Aged about 61 years, Residing at Sugghatta Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.

¶13

Sri. Nanjundamurthy, Son of Late Krishnappa, Aged about 40 years,

¶14

¶15

Residing at No.315, 9^th A cross, Jakkur, Bangalore – 560 064.

¶16

Sri. Narayanaswamy, Son of Late Krishnappa, Aged about 38 years, Residing at No.315, 9^th A cross, Jakkur, Bangalore – 560 064.

¶17

Sri. Ananda, Son of Late Krishnappa, Aged about 32 years, Residing at No.315, 9^th A cross, Jakkur, Bangalore – 560 064.

¶18

Sri. Seethanna, Son of Late Subbanna, Aged about 58 years, Residing at Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore Rural Taluk.

¶19

Sri. Shamanna, Son of Late Subbanna, Aged bout 60 years, Residing at Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore Rural Taluk.

¶20

The Bangalore Development Authority, Office at To Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West,

Bangalore – 560 020.

…RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. M.N.Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate for Respondent No.7 Shri. S. Kumaraswamy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are served)

¶25

¶26

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 15.6.2012, passed on I.A.No.XV in O.S.No.134/2004 by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCh-9) at AnnexureE.

¶27

This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The

¶30

petitioner is said to be the defendant before the trial court in a suit filed by the respondent claiming title on the basis of adverse possession. The suit having reached the stage of final arguments, the plaintiff chose to file an application seeking amendment to elaborate on the plea of adverse possession, to specify the dates on which possession was claimed to be

¶31

¶32

hostile to the defendant etc., and the same having been allowed, the present petition is filed.

¶33

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶34

that the amended pleadings seeking to elaborate the case of the plaintiff is clearly an after-thought, to supply the serious lacuna even in pleading adverse possession. That cannot be supplied by way of amendment to take away the defence set up by the defendant. Conversely, if the court below was convinced on the assertion put-forward by the plaintiff that the amendment was only an elaboration of pleadings that was already present, it was not necessary to incorporate the same, which would require reframing of the issues and further proceedings, which would be a duplication of the earlier proceedings, while placing the defendant at a disadvantage in supplying what was missing in the first instance.

¶35

The learned Counsel for the respondent – plaintiff would insist that the amendment does not change the nature of the case and pleading as to adverse possession and the present

¶36

¶37

amendment was only an elaboration of pleadings that were available and does not cause prejudice to the defendant. In any event, there may not be any need for any additional evidence as

¶38

the pleadings would stand on their own and would further submit that the amendment warranted the court to correct certain categorical errors in the pleadings and hence no prejudice is caused to the respondent.

¶39

Given the nature of the claim set up by the plaintiff, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to specifically plead the events in claiming adverse possession and it was crucial to the very maintainability and success of the suit. If the same have not been pleaded, it cannot be supplied much after the matter has been set down for final arguments. The court below was not justified in permitting such amendment.

¶40

The petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

¶41

The court below shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

S Appanna v. Smt. Huchchamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Appanna v. Smt. Huchchamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Venkatalakshmamma Vs Sri G Venkatesh

Sri B Venugopal Vs Smt v M Sumithra

Sri N. Shanmukhaswamy Vs Sri K.C Prasad

Sri. Sanjeeva Reddy Vs Smt. Adivakka

The School Development & Management Vs Sri P a Krishnamurthy

Mr Nanjaiah Vs Ms Divya