Allowed

Smt.Yaralagadda Jayaprada W/O Leelaprasad v. Smt.Uppalapati Gangabhavani

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2019WP/102438/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the order of the Trial Court rejecting an amendment to a plaint in a partition suit. Relying on precedents, the court allowed the amendment before evidence recording to ensure fair adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the application for amendment of plaint was quashed, and the defendant was granted liberty to file an additional written statement.

Smt.Yaralagadda Jayaprada W/O Leelaprasad Vs Smt.Uppalapati… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶5

W.P.NO.102438/2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.YARALAGADDA JAYAPRADA W/O LEELAPRASAD, AGE: 65 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O AKSHA COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580020.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

SMT.UPPALAPATI GANGABHAVANI, W/O LATE U.ADINARAYANA RAO AGE: 85 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O SRIRAMANAGAR, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL-583227.

¶12

SMT.VASIREDDY RAJANI, W/O VASIREDDY GOPALAKRISHNA GOKHALE, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O 2^ND CROSS, SHIVAGANGA LAYOUT, VIJAYAPUR ROAD, HUBBALLI-20.

¶13

SMT.VASIREDDY USHARANI, W/O VASHIREDDY MURALIKRISHNA,

¶14

¶15

AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O MAHADEVA MANSION, GOOGLE MADGUM CITY GOA-403801.

¶16

….RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI SANJAY S.KATAGERI, ADV.FOR R1; SRI B.SHARANBASAVA, ADV.FOR R2 & R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GANGAVATHI IN O.S.NO.88/2015 DATED 13.03.2018 ON I.A.NO.6 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for parties, same is heard finally.

¶22

In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the Trial Court, by which the application for amendment of the plaint has been rejected.

¶23

¶24

The facts giving rise for filing of the petition

¶25

briefly stated are that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession on 14.09.2015. Before the evidence of the parties was to be recorded, the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint, by which a plea was sought to be incorporated that the properties bearing Survey No.88 and 89 are the self-acquired properties of the father of the plaintiff, which were purchased in the name of defendant No.1. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order on the ground that the plaintiff has not disclosed in the application as to why such a plea was not made initially in the plaint.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and perused the records.

¶27

From perusal of the application for

¶28

amendment, it is evident that in the said application,

¶29

¶30

the plaintiff has sought that the plaintiff came to know about the aforesaid properties recently and since he acquired the knowledge about the aforesaid properties, the same was sought to be included in the suit by way of amendment. The proposed amendment appears to be just and proper for fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit.

¶31

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) through LRs v. S. K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and another, (2008) 14 Supreme

¶32

Court Cases 364 , a just and necessary amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceeding. The proposed amendment is necessary for fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit, when the same has been made even before recording of the evidence of the parties. The impugned order is therefore quashed. Needless to state that the

¶33

¶34

defendant shall be at liberty to file an additional written statement, if so advised. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶35