Criminal Revision Petition challenging rejection of an application to amend a plaint in a partition suit. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's refusal as the petitioner lacked standing and the compromise terms could not be altered unilaterally.
Rev-CRP No. 248 of 2018 dismissed; application to amend plaint rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 248 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O BHYARAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT GODABANAHAL VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK-577501.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.K.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
1(a) G.E. MALLIKARJUNA S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT CHITRAHALLY VILLAGE, THALYA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
1(b) G.E. SUJATHA W/O T.R. LINGARAJU, D/O LATE ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT THALYA VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. CORRECTED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 30.01.2023.
HOUSE NO.2, V.P. EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA-577501.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.D. JAYADEVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1(a) AND (d); SRI. N.K.SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.09.2021, RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 8 ARE DELETED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.01.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1(c) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.08.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1(b) IS DISPENSED WITH CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.11.2023)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.14/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HOLALKERE, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Holalkere in O.S. No.14/2002 by which an application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to amend the plaint by deleting the entire contents of schedule item No.10 to the plaint except the boundaries and to substitute it with land bearing Re-Sy. No.69/1A measuring 01 acre 24 guntas, as described in the schedule to the application was rejected.
between deceased respondent No.1 herein and respondent No.2 herein in terms of which one of the items i.e. land bearing Sy. No.56 of Chitrahally village, Holalkere Taluk, was equally distributed between the deceased respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. This compromise petition was filed on 18.10.2006 and the suit stood disposed off in terms of the judgment dated 18.10.2006. Long thereafter, i.e., on 05.08.2017, the petitioner who had no subsisting right, title or interest in the properties of the family filed an application under Order VI Rules 16 and 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC., contending that the land bearing Sy. No.56 which was partitioned between the deceased respondent No.1 herein and respondent No.2 herein did not belong to the family and instead of Sy. No.56, the land in Re.Sy. No.69/1A had to be substituted in the schedule item No.10 of the plaint.
the parties had settled the dispute amicably in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.56 and that the respondent No.1
NC: 2023:KHC:41423 CRP No. 248 of 2018
herein (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives) was unwilling to concede to the application filed by the petitioner, rejected the application in terms of the impugned order dated 26.02.2018.
petitioner is before this Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:41423 CRP No. 248 of 2018
to the family and that it has to be substituted by the land bearing Sy. No.69/1A. He further contends that the petitioner has no locus standi to file such an application as she has no subsisting right, title or interest in the properties of the family.
NC: 2023:KHC:41423 CRP No. 248 of 2018
amendment of the plaint. The deceased respondent No.1 had contested the application claiming that, what was to be partitioned was land bearing Sy. No.56 and not Sy. No.69/1A. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein. There is no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference by this Court.
Hence, this Petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a plaintiff with no subsisting right, title or interest can apply to amend a compromise decree to alter the subject land after distribution.
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application to substitute survey number 56 with Re-Sy. No.69/1A without signatures of all parties.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
SRI. ESHWARAPPA
1(a) G.E. MALLIKARJUNA
1(d) G.E.VASANTHA
SRI. JAYAPPA
SMT. B.S. SAROJAMMA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
