Allowed

Naveen v. Haleshappa Galera

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2024WP/16856/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs in a partition suit challenged rejection of their application to amend the boundaries of the suit schedule properties. The High Court held the amendment changed neither the nature of the suit nor the cause of action and caused no prejudice, allowed the writ petition and set aside the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16.03.2022 on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.181/2016 set aside; plaintiffs permitted to amend the property schedule; defendants may file additional written statement.

Naveen Vs Haleshappa Galera — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12334 WP No. 16856 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16856 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NAVEEN S/O HALESHAPPA GALERA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS AGRICULTURIST/BUS AGENT R/O BHIRANAHALLI VILLAGE SASVEHALLI HOBLI HONNALI TALUK-577217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶8

NANDINI W/O SHANTHANAGOWDA D/O HALESHAPPA GALERA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O KANAKANAHALLI HONNALI TALUK

¶9

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.M. HALA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

HALESHAPPA GALERA S/O NAGAPPA GALERA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶15

SMT. RATNAMMA W/O HALESHAPPA GALERA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶16

BOTH ARE R/O BHIRANAHALLI VILLAGE SASVEHALLI HOBLI, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12334 WP No. 16856 of 2022

¶18

BASAVARAJAPPA S/O NAGAPPA GALERA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O BHIRANAHALLI VILLAGE SASVEHALLI HOBLI HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 3)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HONNALI, ON I.A NO.03 ANNEXURE-A IN O.S.NO.181/2016.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The plaintiffs in O.S No.181/2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Honnali, (henceforth referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) have filed this petition challenging an order dated 16.03.2022 by which the application (I.A. No.3) filed by the plaintiff No.1 on his behalf and on behalf of plaintiff No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected.

¶25

The suit in O.S. No.181/2016 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ share in

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12334 WP No. 16856 of 2022

¶27

the suit schedule properties. The suit was contested by the defendant No.3 who claimed that there was a prior partition on 06.02.2007 between the defendant Nos.1 and 3 and they had divided the properties. Hence, he contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief.

¶28

The Trial Court set down the case for trial after framing issues. At this stage, the plaintiff No.1/plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC., to amend the boundaries of the properties mentioned in the suit schedule. This application was opposed by the defendant No.3. The Trial Court after considering the contentions urged, rejected the application (I.A. No.3) on the ground that the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs was not property justified and mere mentioning that boundaries of the suit schedule properties were wrongly mentioned due to typographical error was not sufficient.

¶29

Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs have filed this petition.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12334 WP No. 16856 of 2022

¶31

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs

¶32

submit that survey number/s of the properties which were involved in the suit are not changed but it is only the boundaries of the suit schedule properties which are sought to be rectified by mentioning their correct boundaries. He submits that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the amendment is allowed and the cause of action or the nature of the suit would not be altered.

¶33

The respondents though served with notice, are

¶34

absent.

¶35

A perusal of the application (I.A No.3) filed by

¶36

the plaintiff No.1 / plaintiffs for amendment, shows that the amendment was only to incorporate the correct boundaries of the suit schedule properties. It neither changed the nature of the suit nor the cause of action and did not prejudice the defendants in any manner whatsoever and the plaintiffs did not attempt to withdraw any admission. In that view of the matter, the amendment

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12334 WP No. 16856 of 2022

¶38

sought for in I.A. No.3 was necessary for the adjudication of the dispute and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants interference.

¶39

The Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Honnali, on I.A No.3 in O.S. No.181/2016 is set aside. The plaintiffs are permitted to amend the schedule of the properties in the plaint. It is open for the defendants to file an additional written statement, if they are so advised.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

SMA

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Naveen v. Haleshappa Galera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen v. Haleshappa Galera

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

Ms. K. v. Kumari Vs Sri. K. Shivaprasad

Smt. K. Pushpavathi Vs Sri. Abhilash Bhaskaran

The Special Land Acquisition and Vs Shri v Krishnamurthy

Mr. Roshan Alwyn D Mello Vs Mr. Austin Miranda

Smt Menku Poojarthy Vs Sri Sandesh S N

Sri B S Manjunath Vs Sri S Murthy