Dismissed

Karabasappa S/O Guddappa Khandappalavar v. Smt. Ratnavva W/O Natraj Haravi

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024WP/147311/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the challenge to the First Appellate Court’s rejection of applications to amend written statement and produce documents in a civil appeal. The Court upheld the dismissal as the amendment proposed a new defense impermissible at appellate stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merit and the impugned orders are upheld.

Karabasappa S/O Guddappa Khandappalavar Vs Smt. Ratnavva W/O… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16069 WP No. 147311 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.147311 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARABASAPPA S/O. GUDDAPPA KHANDAPPALAVAR, AGE:39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GANGAPUR VILLAGE - 581 115, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶10

RAJAPPA S/O. HUVAPPA KHANDAPPALAVAR, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GANGAPUR VILLAGE - 581 115, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶11

GADIGEPPA S/O. HUVAPPA KHANDAPPALAVAR, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GANGAPUR VILLAGE - 581 115, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. RATNAVVA W/.O NATRAJ HARAVI, AGE:53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: VIJAYNAGAR BADAVANE, 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, KONDAJJI ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

¶17

SMT. VANAJAXAMMA W/O. NINGAPPA KHANDAPPALAVAR, AGE:56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GANGAPUR VILLAGE - 581 115, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶18

SMT. HALAVVA W/O. NINGAPPA KHANDAPPALAVAR, AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GANGAPUR VILLAGE - 581 115,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16069 WP No. 147311 of 2020

¶20

TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶21

SHESHI S/O. NINGAPPA KHANDAPPALAVAR, AGE:36 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GANGAPUR VILLAGE - 581 115, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶22

MANU S/O. NINGAPPA KHANDAPPALAVAR, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GANGAPUR VILLAGE - 581 115, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶23

SMT. CHANDRAVVA URF CHANDRAKALA W/O. RAJAPPA GENER, AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: YARABALU VILLAGE - 583 137, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: DAVANAGERE.

¶24

SUDHAMMA D/O. NINGAPPA KHANDAPPALAVAR, AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GANGAPUR VILLAGE - 581 115, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI N.K.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 ARE SERVED)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ON I.A.NO.9 (ANNEXURE-K) AND IMPUGNED COMMON ORDERS ON I.A.NO.8 AND 10 (ANNEXURE-L) DATED 16.06.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.9/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, RANEBENNUR.

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16069 WP No. 147311 of 2020

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶33

The present writ petition is filed challenging two separate orders dated 16.06.2020 passed in R.A.No.9/2017 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur¹ whereunder the I.A.No.IX filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sectin 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908² and I.A.No.VIII as also I.A.No.X filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC, have been dismissed by the First Appellate Court.

¶34

The relevant factual matrix in brief leading

¶35

to the present writ petition are that respondent No.1 instituted a suit in O.S.No.106/2011 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Ranebennur³ for declaration that she is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property as also for other reliefs. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit. Defendant No.1 died during the

¶36

1 Hereinafter referred to as “the First Appellate Court”

¶37

2 Hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”

¶38

3 Hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16069 WP No. 147311 of 2020

¶40

pendency of the said suit and his legal representatives were brought on record. The 3^rd defendant filed his written statement, which was adopted by the other defendants. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 11.01.2017 decreed the suit.

¶41

Being aggrieved, the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 and defendants 2 to 4 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.9/2017. In the said appeal, the appellants filed three applications: (i) I.A.No.VIII under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC to permit the appellants to produce the documents; (ii) I.A.No.IX under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the written statement; and (iii) I.A.No.X under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC to produce documents. The applications were objected to by the first respondent/plaintiff. The First Appellate Court by order dated 16.06.2020, dismissed the I.A.No.IX as well as by order dated 16.06.2020 dismissed I.A.No.VIII and X. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16069 WP No. 147311 of 2020

¶43

Heard the submissions of learned counsel,

¶44

Sri.Prashant S Kadadevar for the petitioners/defendants No.2 to 4 and learned counsel and Sri.N.R.Kuppelur for respondent No.1/plaintiff.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners

¶46

assailing the order passed by the First Appellate Court, vehemently contends that the petitioners sought to amend their written statement to include the contention that the properties are joint family properties and that the defendants are also entitled to a share in the suit properties. He further contends that the said plea is not a new plea and various factual aspects have already been averred in the written statement and the same ought not have been rejected by the First Appellate Court. With regard to the application for production of documents, he submits that the documents sought to be produced along with the applications are revenue records, which ought to have been granted by the First Appellate Court. Hence, he

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16069 WP No. 147311 of 2020

¶49

seeks for allowing of the writ petition and granting of the relief as sought for.

¶50

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶51

respondents justifying the order passed by the First Appellate Court, contends that the First Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the factual aspect of the matter and has noticed that the plea sought to be taken in the proposed amendment sets up a new case by the defendants and hence the applications have been rightly rejected by the First Appellate Court. It is further contended that the application for production of documents has also been rightly rejected and the same

¶52

ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition.

¶53

The submissions of both the learned

¶54

counsel have been considered and the material on record have been perused.

¶55

It is forthcoming that the defendants in

¶56

the written statement have taken a specific plea that the

¶57

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16069 WP No. 147311 of 2020

¶58

plaintiff has relinquished her right, title and interest in the suit properties and as also taken a plea of adverse possession. Vide I.A.No.IX filed in R.A.No9/2017, the defendants are seeking to set up a defence that they are also entitled for a share in the suit properties. The First Appellate Court, while considering the said application, has rightly noticed that the proposed amendment is a new plea and tantamounts to setting up a new defence which cannot be permitted at the appellate stage. The First Appellate Court has further held that the appellants have failed to demonstrate that the amendment is necessary to determine the real controversy in dispute between the parties and that the same will not cause any prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by way of money.

¶59

With regard to the applications for production of documents, the First Appellate Court appreciating the contention put forth by the said applicants, has rightly noticed that the

¶60

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16069 WP No. 147311 of 2020

¶61

appellants/applicants have not stated in the affidavit accompanying the application as to why the said documents could not have been produced earlier and that in spite of due diligence the same could not have been produced in the suit.

¶62

As has been rightly held by the First Appellate Court, permitting the appellants to amend the written statement would tantamount to permitting the defendants to raise a new plea at the appellate stage which is impermissible in law. Further, the appellants not having demonstrated as to why they were not able to produce the documents before the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the application for production of documents.

¶63

The findings recorded by the First

¶64

Appellate Court in dismissing the applications filed by the appellants are just and proper and the petitioners have failed in demonstrating that the same is erroneous and

¶65

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16069 WP No. 147311 of 2020

¶66

liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present petition.

¶67

In view of the aforementioned, the writ

¶68

petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶69

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶70

YAN,SH CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Karabasappa S/O Guddappa Khandappalavar v. Smt. Ratnavva W/O Natraj Haravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karabasappa S/O Guddappa Khandappalavar v. Smt. Ratnavva W/O Natraj Haravi

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

Chandramohan S/O. P.R. Thankappan Pillai Vs Uma S. Shetty

Purandara S/O. B.K. Narasimha Bekal Vs Uma S. Shetty

The Land Acquisition Officer and Asst Commissioner Koppal 583231 Vs Shri Kanakappa S/O Bhemappa Kuri Age Major Occ Agriculture R/O Vanaballari Tq and Dist Koppal

Sri Avinash Vs Smt.Danakka Ravasab Kudagannavar

Veeranna S/O. Gangappa Sambaragi Vs Sri. Nandkumar S/O. Ishwar Sankeshwar

Smt. Nagaveni W/O Nagesh Naik Vs Shrikant S/O Mahabaleshwar Kanchagar