Plaintiffs in a mortgage redemption suit sought amendment of plaint to convert it into a title-declaration suit challenging a 1980 sale deed. Trial court refused; High Court found no illegality or perversity and dismissed the writ petition.
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 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 34485 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: high court of karnataka
(BY SRI. SHIVASWAMY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
…PETITIONERS
1(A) SMT. JAYARATHNA W/O LATE G.V. HONNEGOWDA AGEDA BOUT 53 YEARS RESIDNG AT GATTIGUNDA VILLAGE KODIHALLI HOBLI,KANAKAPURA ALUK RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 119
(B) SRI. CHANDRU
S/O LATE G.V. HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDNG AT GATTIGUNDA VILLAGE KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA ALUK RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 119
(C) SRI. KIRAN
S/O LATE G.V. HONNEGOWA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDNG AT GATTIGUNDA VILLAGE KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA ALUK RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 119
(D) PAVITHRA
D/O LATE G.V. HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDNG AT GATTIGUNDA VILLAGE KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA ALUK RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 119
2 (A) SMT. GAYATHRI W/O LATE SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDNG AT GATTIGUNDA VILLAGE, KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA ALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 119
2 (B) RAMYA D/O LATE SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDNG AT GATTIGUNDA VILLAGE, KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA ALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 119
2 (C) CHITHRA D/O LATE SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDNG AT GATTIGUNDA VILLAGE, KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA ALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 119
…RESPONDENTS
(R1 (A TO D) AND R2 (A TO C) -SERVED -UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE REOCRDS IN O.S.53/2007 FROM THE HON'BEL 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KANAKAPURA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT;SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.4.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KANAKAPURA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT IN O.S.53/2007 ON I.A.VIII FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS / PETITIONERS, VIDE ANNEX-D TO THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION ALLOW I.A.NO. VIII DATED 3.3.2015 / 17.3.2015 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS / PETITIONERS HEREIN UNDER ORDER VI RULE K17 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENTS OF PLAINT VIDE ANNEX-C AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Plaintiffs in OS No. 53 of 2007 on the file of the learned II
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Kanakapura, Ramanagara, are seeking the writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 19.04.2017 rejecting IA No. VIII filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, refusing to grant permission to amend the plaint.
NC: 2024:KHC:4762 WP No. 34485 of 2017
petitioners. Respondents are served and unrepresented. Perused the materials on record.
statement denying the contentions taken in the plaint and also asserting that the plaintiffs are not having any right over the property. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed IA No. VIII under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint and also the prayer. In the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs are denying the execution of sale deed dated 26.04.1980 receiving of consideration as contended by the defendants. Moreover, the plaintiffs want to delete prayer(a) made in the original plaint and in its place, they wanted to seek declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and the sale deed dated 26.04.1980 is null and void and it is not binding on the right of the plaintiffs. The proposed amendment discloses that the plaintiffs want to change the entire nature of the suit, which was originally a suit for redemption of mortgage in to a suit for declaration of title and also to declare that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs. The original prayer made in the plaint was required to be deleted by substituting altogether a different prayer. The cause of action for such prayer is also entirely different. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief as claimed in IA No. VIII.
NC: 2024:KHC:4762 WP No. 34485 of 2017
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiffs' application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint from redemption of mortgage to declaration of title.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prabhuveera Swamy
K.P. Sathyananda
Jayarathna
Chandru
Kiran
Gayathri
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
