Plaintiffs in a partition suit challenged rejection of their applications to amend the plaint and implead purchasers. The High Court partly allowed amendment to include additional schedule properties but upheld rejection of impleadment, holding purchasers are relevant only at final decree proceedings.
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 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2412 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
HIS WIFE SMT. RADHAMMA DIED ON 04.06.2021, NO LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
RESPONDENT NOS.11(a) TO 11(c) ARE RESIDING AT KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU - 560064
11(d) SMT. PADMA W/O. RAMPURA SRINIVASA D/O. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU - 560064
1ST MAIN, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU - 560064
11(f) SMT. CHANDRAKALA D/O. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT LAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE TUMKUR HOBLI, GUBBI POST TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESHA T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. K.B.CHANDRASHEKARA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 AND 9;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.7, 8; RESPONDENT NO.10 DEAD;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.11(F))
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 23.03.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT DEVANAHALLI ON I.A.NO.7 AND I.A.NO.8 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN, IN O.S.540/2008 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THE SAME FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT AND IMPLEAD THE PARTIES AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.540/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) are before this Court challenging the orders dated 23.03.2021 by which, the applications (I.A.Nos.7 and 8) filed by them under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 and Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code were rejected.
(ii) This application (I.A.No.7) was not opposed by the defendants. However, the application (I.A.No.8) filed by the
plaintiffs to implead proposed defendants were opposed by the defendant Nos.1 to 11 who contended that there was prior partition dated 11.11.1968, in terms of which, the suit properties were partitioned. They contended that the alienation made by them were all pursuant to the right, title and interest which they derived under the partition dated 11.11.1968.
(iii) The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order, rejected both the applications on the ground that the application for amendment was filed after seven years from the date of institution of the suit and that the plaintiffs did not disclose when and how they came to know about the alienation made, the sale of the properties and conversion of the land etc.
at the preliminary stage, the Trial Court must have allowed the application.
and learned counsel for the defendants, this Court is of the opinion that the application filed by the plaintiffs cannot be allowed in its entirety. However, having regard to the peculiar defence raised by the defendants that suit properties were subject matter of prior partition, the only liberty that may be granted to plaintiffs is to include additional properties mentioned in the application for amendment. The question of impleading the purchasers would not arise at the stage of
drawing up of a preliminary decree in the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition. If the plaintiffs succeed in the suit for partition, then the purchasers would be necessary party to the final decree proceedings so as to work out equity and to save the alienations made in their favour by considering allotment of the properties conveyed by the defendants to the share of respective defendants or by working out equity in the manner known to law.
NC: 2024:KHC:49698 WP No. 2412 of 2022
requested to dispose off the suit as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one year from the date of framing of
issues.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
HJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7
2 issues framed by the court
Could the plaintiffs amend the plaint to add properties in a partition suit filed seven years earlier?
Were proposed purchaser defendants necessary parties at the preliminary decree stage?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
V H Srinivas
Narayanaswamy
Smt. Nagarathna
Sri Krishnappa
Sri B Venkateshaiah
Sri Chikka Venkatappa
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
