Allowed

Smt K v. Jyothi v Smt Lakshmamma

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2022WP/9603/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed writ petitions seeking to quash the rejection of a plaint amendment application. The High Court held that the amendment was explanatory, did not prejudice the respondent, and was in line with existing pleadings, setting aside the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were allowed, the impugned order passed by the trial judge was set aside, the amendment application was allowed, and the trial judge was directed to decide the suit within eight mon

Smt K v Jyothi Vs Smt Lakshmamma — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 9603 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 9581 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

IN WP. NO. 9603 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT K V JYOTHI D/O N. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 48, 2ND A MAIN 3RD CROSS, NISARGA LAYOUT DODDANEKKUNDI BENGAURU 560 037 REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLER, MR. K.V. SURESH R/AT NO. 2/2, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, K.R. PURAM, BENGAURU 560036

¶10

SMT. K.V JAYABHARATHI D/O N. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO. 539/16, 2A, 2ND FLOOR, 7TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGAURU 560 019 REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLER MR. K.V. SURESH R/AT NO. 2/2,

¶11

¶12

OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, K.R. PURAM, BENGARUU 560 036

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE) AND

¶15

SMT LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶16

(a). NARAYANAPPA S/OLTE RAMAIAH SHETTY RA/T VINAYAKANAGAR NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE DEVASANDRA K.R.PURAM BENGALURU 560 036

¶17

1(a)1.VENKATARAMAN S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE DEVASANDRA K.R PURAM BENGALURU 560 036

¶18

1(a)2.RAMAPPA

¶19

S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE DEVASANDRA K.R PURAM BENGALURU 560 036

¶20

1(b). V. RAMASWSAMY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶21

1(c). V. LAKSHMANA SWAMY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶22

¶23

1(b)(a). NAGABHUSHANA S/O LE RAMASWAMY R/AT ITI NORHT COLONY DOORAANINAGAR BENGALURU 560 016

¶24

1(b)(b). R. KESHAVAMURTHY

¶25

S/O LATE RAMASWAMY

¶26

R/AT NO. 1512, MASJID ROAD, K.R. PURAM BENGALURU 560 036

¶27

1(b)(c). R. RAJESWARI

¶28

D/O LTE V. RAMASWAMY

¶29

R/AT NEAR SHANIMAHATMA TEMPLE SHANTHI LAYOUT K.R. PURAM BENGALURU 560 036

¶30

1(c)(a). MANJUNATHA

¶31

S/O LATE V. LAKSHMANA SWAMY R/AT ANGADI RAMAIAH HOUSE BENGALURU 560 092 BYATARAYANAPURA BELARY ROAD.

¶32

1(c)(b). DEEPAK

¶33

S/O LATE V. LAKSHMANA SWAMY R/AT ANGADI RAMAIAH HOUSE BENGALURU 560 092 BYATARAYANAPURA BELARY ROAD.

¶34

K.N. MOHAN S/O LATE K.P NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO. 75, NEW BAZAAR STREET K.R. PURAM

...RESPONDENTS

BENGALURU-56 0036

(BY SRI.M.S.VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, V/O DTD 12.05.2022 NOTICE TO R1(A-C) ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2022 PASSED IN THE RESPECT OF IA NO.XXXII FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE SUIT IN OS.973/2003 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26) (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

¶40

IN WP. NO. 9581 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

¶41

K.V.SURESH

¶42

S/O N.VENKATARAMANAPPA,

¶43

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/2, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560036

¶44

K.V.RAMESH

¶45

S/O N.VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/2, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560036

¶46

...PETITIONERS

¶47

(BY SRI. P. VENKATARAMANA, ADVOCATE)

¶48

AND:

¶49

SMT LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶50

(a). NARAYANAPPA

¶51

¶52

S/OLTE RAMAIAH SHETTY RA/T VINAYAKANAGAR NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE DEVASANDRA K.R.PURAM BENGALURU 560 036

¶53

1(a)1.VENKATARAMAN S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE DEVASANDRA K.R PURAM BENGALURU 560 036

¶54

1(a)2.RAMAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE DEVASANDRA K.R PURAM BENGALURU 560 036

¶55

1(b). V. RAMASWSAMY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶56

1(c). V. LAKSHMANA SWAMY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶57

1(b)(a). NAGABHUSHANA S/O LE RAMASWAMY R/AT ITI NORHT COLONY DOORAANINAGAR BENGALURU 560 016

¶58

1(b)(b). R. KESHAVAMURTHY S/O LATE RAMASWAMY

¶59

R/AT NO. 1512, MASJID ROAD, K.R. PURAM BENGALURU 560 036

¶60

¶61

1(b)(c). R. RAJESWARI D/O LTE V. RAMASWAMY R/AT NEAR SHANIMAHATMA TEMPLE SHANTHI LAYOUT K.R. PURAM BENGALURU 560 036

¶62

1(c)(a). MANJUNATHA S/O LATE V. LAKSHMANA SWAMY R/AT ANGADI RAMAIAH HOUSE BENGALURU 560 092 BYATARAYANAPURA BELARY ROAD.

¶63

1(c)(b). DEEPAK S/O LATE V. LAKSHMANA SWAMY R/AT ANGADI RAMAIAH HOUSE BENGALURU 560 092 BYATARAYANAPURA BELARY ROAD.

¶64

K.N. MOHAN S/O LATE K.P NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO. 75, NEW BAZAAR STREET K.R. PURAM BENGALURU 56 0036

¶65

...RESPONDENTS

¶66

(V/O DTD 12.05.2022 NOTICE TO R1(A-C) ARE DISPENSED WITH, R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶67

¶68

¶69

IN OS.973/2003 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26) (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

¶70

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the learned X Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore on I.A.No.XXXII filed under Order VI rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.973/2003 as per Annexure-A seeking amendment of plaint.

¶73

The present petitioners have instituted a suit for specific performance of contract and for declaration in O.S.No.973/2003. The present petitioners asserts that defendant No.1/respondent No.1 has entered into an agreement to sell for a sale consideration of `2,25,000/-. The petitioners further claim that

¶74

¶75

defendant No.1/respondent No.1 has executed a sale agreement on 07.02.2000 and received an advance amount of `25,000/-. The present suit is filed alleging that defendant No.1 having entered into an agreement, has failed to perform his part of contract and therefore, the present suit has been instituted.

¶76

Defendant No.2 claims to be the purchaser. The plaintiffs/petitioners claim that it is only after filing of the suit they came to know about the collateral transaction and therefore, filled an interlocutory application and the subsequent transferee i.e., defendant No.2 was brought on record. Defendant No.2 has filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.2 claims that he has purchased the suit schedule property from the deceased original owner defendant No.1 namely, Lakshmamma on 19.09.2002. Defendant No.2 also claimed that pursuant to sale

¶77

¶78

deed, possession was also delivered to defendant No.2/respondent No.2 herein.

¶79

The petitioners herein, to substantiate their claim, have lead in ocular evidence and have also produced documentary evidence. The defendant No.2/respondent No.2 has also lead in rebuttal evidence. After conclusion of trial, the petitioners have filed the present application seeking amendment of plaint to incorporate paragraphs 5(b) to 5(d). By way of proposed amendment, petitioners have claimed that the said pleadings in the proposed amendment are only explanatory in nature and the said proposed amendment would assist the Court in adjudicating the actual controversy between the parties. It was further contended that the proposed amendment would only throw some light over the description and location of the properties, which are the subject matter of the suit. The said application

¶80

¶81

was strongly resisted by defendant No.2/respondent No.2.

¶82

The learned Judge having examined rival contentions, has proceeded to reject the application on the premise that the present suit is 19 years old matter and there is inordinate delay in seeking the proposed amendment. The learned Judge was of the view that no satisfactory reasons are forth coming in omitting to seek the said amendments at the earlier stage of the proceedings. The learned Judge has come to conclusion that proposed amendment is not all necessary to determine the real controversy involved in the case.

¶83

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in writ petition would vehemently argue and contend that the proposed amendment is very much necessary as there is some ambiguity in

¶84

¶85

the description of the suit schedule property referred to in the suit agreement. The plaintiffs apprehension is, in the event they succeed, they may face some difficulties in executing the decree and the respondents/defendants may take undue advantage and the decree in all probability may become unexecutable. It is in this background, learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the finding of the learned Trial Judge that the proposed amendment is not at all necessary to decide the actual controversy between the parties is misconceived and contrary to the material on record. She would also point out that the proposed amendment would neither expand the scope of litigation nor any new prayer or relief is sought. She would contend that the proposed amendment is entirely based on the existing pleas raised in the plaint and also during the course of the trial. On these set of grounds, she would contend that

¶86

¶87

the learned Trial Judge ought to have taken a liberal view while considering the amendment application.

¶88

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

¶89

No.2 would seriously dispute the claim of the plaintiffs and also contend that the order under challenge does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. He would contend that at paragraph No.13 of the objection, respondent No.2 rightly raised an objection with regard to incorporation of proposed amendment. Pointing out the relevant paragraph of the objection, he would contend that the alleged sites bearing No.12A, 12B, 12C were really in existence and if defendant intends to knock off the sites, then petitioners/plaintiffs have a separate cause of action and therefore, he would contend that the present amendment application lacks bonafide. He would also contend that dispute with regard to sites bearing No.12A, 12B, 12C is pending consideration in

¶90

¶91

O.S.No.8774/2010 and therefore, the proposed amendment would virtually affect the rights of respondent No.2 which is pending consideration in O.S.No.8774/2010 and therefore, he would contend

¶92

that the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the application.

¶93

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶94

Perused the order under challenge. On

¶95

meticulous examination of pleadings and written statement filed by respondent No.2, this Court would find that there is no dispute in regard to identification of suit schedule property. The claims made by petitioners/plaintiffs and respondent No.2 is in respect of suit schedule property. Respondent No.2 is asserting that he was a bonafide purchaser of site

¶96

¶97

bearing No.12 and he has claimed title based on registered sale deed dated 19.09.2002, while petitioner is asserting that he has acquired right pursuant to agreement to sell executed by defendant No.1. Both plaintiffs and respondent No.2 are tracing their right through a common vendor. The present suit is one for specific performance of contract. If plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are asserting right and title over the same property i.e., site bearing No.12, then the proposed amendment which is only explanatory in nature would not cause any prejudice to the rights of defendant No.2. The actual lis that needs to be decided in the suit is as to whether the plaintiffs/petitioners succeeds in proving the due execution of suit agreement and whether they are entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance. Equally respondent No.2 is bound to prove that he is a bonafide purchaser for a valuable consideration

¶98

¶99

without notice and his rights are to be decided under Section 19(b) of Specific Relief Act. Therefore, the proposed amendment sought by the

¶100

petitioners/plaintiffs would in no way cause any prejudice to the right of respondent No.2. To be more specific, it will not affect the defence set up by respondent No.2. The proposed amendment needs to be allowed as learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted to this court that present petitioners/plaintiffs does not intend to lead any further evidence in so far as the proposed amendment, which is sought to be incorporated as they are only explanatory in nature.

¶101

In this background, I would find that the learned Trial Judge erred in rejecting the application on the premise that it is moved at a belated stage. It is a trite law that amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings provided, the proposed

¶102

¶103

amendment does not seriously prejudice the rights of opposite pary. It is also more than trite law that by way of proposed amendment, parties cannot be permitted to withdraw the admissions. Such eventualities are not found in the present case on hand. It is in this background, this Court would find that the learned Judge erred in rejecting the application. There is a reasonable apprehension on the part of plaintiffs that in the event they succeed, there may be some difficulty in enforcing the decree. Therefore, the proposed amendment is sought. The sketch produced by the plaintiffs at Annexure-J which is also part of record, clearly shows that there are several properties situated towards the northern side of the suit schedule property. All that plaintiffs intend to offer is an explanation to the existing factual matrix. I find some force in the contention raised by the petitioners before this Court that the proposed

¶104

¶105

amendments are in the line of existing pleadings and material on record. It is in this background, this Court would find that order under challenge is not at all sustainable. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

¶106

ORDER

¶107

The writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by the learned Trial Judge on I.A.No.XXXII is set aside. The amendment application filed under Order VI rule 17 of CPC is allowed.

¶108

The petitioners/plaintiffs are permitted to incorporate the proposed pleadings.

¶109

Any observation made by this Court during the course of the order shall not prejudice and affect the defence set up by respondent No.2 in the pending suit bearing O.S.No.8774/2010.

¶110

¶111

In the connected writ petition it is plaintiff No.1(a) and 1(c) who have sought for amendment of plaint. Similarly, in the present writ petition, it is plaintiff No.1(b) to (d) who have sought for amendment of plaint seeking leave to incorporate very same proposed amendment. Since the leading writ petition is allowed. I am of the view that the connected writ petition also deserves to be allowed.

¶112

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The plaintiffs are permitted to incorporate the proposed amendment in the plaint.

¶113

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would bring to the notice of this Court that the suit is of the year 2003. I find some force in the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. The learned Trial Judge is directed to expedite the matter and decide

¶114

¶115

the case as early as possible, within an outer limit of

eight months.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HDK

Smt K v. Jyothi v Smt Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K v. Jyothi v Smt Lakshmamma

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

R Jayalakshmi Vs N Nagaraju

Mrs. Razia Begum Vs Mr Noorulamin Mohammed Saheb Patel

Sri N R Panditharadhya Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Sri. T. Ramchandra Nayak Vs the Karkala Jaycees Education

Sri K S Ashoka Vs Sri K S Balaji

A T Govindaraju Vs a T Savithramma