Dismissed

Sri. T. Narayana Reddy v. Sri. Lakshmaiah Reddy

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2024WP/4890/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to amend a plaint in a partition suit. The court refused to allow the petitioner to recharacterize properties as self-acquired after evidence was led, noting admissions cannot be withdrawn to plead a new case.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved to challenge impugned order in appeal.

Sri. T. Narayana Reddy Vs Sri. Lakshmaiah Reddy — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41567 WP No. 4890 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 4890 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. T. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶9

SRI. T. NARASIMHA REDDY SINCE DECEASED BY LRS., SMT. VARALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O. LATE T. NARASIMHA REDDY.

¶10

MR. DEEPAK AGED ABOUT 22 YERAS, S/O. LATE T. NARASIMHA REDDY.

¶11

MS. NANDINI AGED ABOUT 18 YERAS D/O. LATE T. NARASIMHA REDDY,

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. T. JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 46 YERAS, ALL ARE CHILDREN OF LATE SMT. RUKMINIYAMMA & SRI. THATAPPA REDDY AND ALL ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.777, 3RD CROSS, A BLOCK, 1ST MAIN, KONENA AGRAHARA, VARTUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. IMRAN PASHA., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41567 WP No. 4890 of 2017

¶19

S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.,

¶20

SMT. NARASAMMA, 1(a) MAJOR, W/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.34/4, 7TH CROSS, PRAGATHINAGAR, CHIKKA THOGUR, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE-560 100.

¶21

1(b). SMT. MAHALAKSHMI MAJOR, D/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.205, INNOVATIVE COSAMA APARTMENTS, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, "A" BLOCK, VINAYAKANAGAR, KONAN AGRAHARA, BANGALORE-560 017.

¶22

1(c). SMT. ARUNA MAJOR, D/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.34/4, 7TH CROSS, PRAGATHINAGAR, CHIKKA THOGUR, ELECTRONIC CITY POST.

¶23

1(d). SMT. VANAJAKSHI MAJOR, D/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.205, INNOVATIVE COSAMA PARTMENTS, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, "A" BLOCK, VINAYAKANAGAR, KONANA AGRAHARA, BANGALORE-560 017.

¶24

1(e). SMT. KAVITHA MAJOR, D/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.34/4, 7TH CROSS, PRAGATHINAGAR, CHIKKA THOGUR,

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41567 WP No. 4890 of 2017

¶26

ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE-560 100.

¶27

SRI. RAMACHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, NO.931/836, 3RD & 4TH MAIN, CHANNEKESHAVANAGAR HOSA ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE-100.

¶28

SRI. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, R/AT NO.38, CHIKKATHOGURU VILLAGE, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 100. (LATER TRANSPOSED FROM DEFENDANT NO.3 TO PLAINTIFF NO.4 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.09.2014 PASSED IN THE SUIT) SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶29

3(a) SMT ANASUYAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY.

¶30

3(b) SMT K REKHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS D/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY.

¶31

3(c) MS K MEENA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS D/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY. RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 10 ARE R/AT NO.38, CHIKKATHOGURU VILLAGE ELECTRONIC CITY POST BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560100.

¶32

SMT. PUTTAMMA @ VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, NO.931/836, 3RD & 4TH MAIN, CHANNEKESHAVANAGAR,

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41567 WP No. 4890 of 2017

¶34

HOSA ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE - 560 100.

¶35

SRI. MUNIRAJA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, R/AT NO.38, CHIKKATHOGURU VILLAGE, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 100.

¶36

SMT. ANASUYAMMA W/O. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.38, CHIKKATHAGUR VILLAGE, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE-560 100.

¶37

SMT. T. PREMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O. GOPAL REDDY, R/AT NO.19, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, "A" BLOCK, VINAYAKA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 017.

¶38

SMT. T. JANAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O. MUNIKRISHNA REDDY, R/AT NO.21, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, "A" BLOCK, VINAYAKA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 017.

¶39

SRI. SAMPANGI RAMA REDDY MAJOR, S/O. MUNIYAPPA REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.931/836, 3RD AND 4TH MAIN, CHANNA KESHAVANAGAR, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE-560 100.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. K R LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO.,ADVOCATE FOR R1(a-e) SRI. H S DWARAKANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R5: AND ALSO FOR APPLICANTS IN IA 4/21 [VK READ WITH OFFICE OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICANTS 1-4]

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41567 WP No. 4890 of 2017

¶43

SRI. K.P. THRIMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3: SRI. M.S. RAGHUNATH, ADVCOATE FOR R3(a-c): SRI. K.B. CHANDRASHEKAR SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R9: SRI. VEERENDRA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R8: R6, R7 ARE SERVED V/O DATED: 05.09.2023 R2 IS DIED AND LR'S ARE R1(a-e) R3(a-c), R4 & R5)

¶44

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE REJECTION OF THE ORDER DATED 5.1.2017 PASSED ON IA NO.111/16 BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE [CCH NO.29] MAYOHALL. BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.26941/2008 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND IN REVERSAL OF THE SAME, BE PLEASE TO ALLOW IA NO.111/16 FILE UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ENTIRETY AND ETC.

¶45

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

¶46

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶47

ORAL ORDER

¶48

The petitioners have challenged an order dated 05.01.2017, passed by Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S No.26941/2008, by which an application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was rejected.

¶49

The suit in O.S NO.26941/2008 was filed for

¶50

partition and separate possession of suit item Nos.1 to 20. In the plaint, it was stated that the plaintiffs were children of Sri

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41567 WP No. 4890 of 2017

¶52

Thathappa Reddy and Smt. Rukminiamma. The father of Smt. Rukminiamma named Sri Muniswamappa and his children named Sri Sampangirama Reddy, Sri Lakshmaiah Reddy, Sri Ramachandra Reddy, Sri Krishna Reddy, Smt. Puttamma and Sri Muniraja Reddy constituted a joint family. After the demise

¶53

of Sri Sampangi Rama Reddy, his legal heirs filed O.S No.375/2003 for partition and separate possession of their share in the properties of the joint family. The said suit was compromised on 26.06.2003. The share of legal representatives of late Sri Sampangi Rama Reddy, was give away in terms of compromise and the joint family consisting of Sri Lakshmaiah Reddy, Smt. Rukminiamma, Sri Ramachandra Reddy, Sri Krishna Reddy, Smt. Puttamma and Sri Muniraja Reddy continued. Smt. Rukminamma died leaving behind the plaintiffs to succeed to her share in properties. After the death Sri Muniswamappa, the parties continued in the joint family for the sake of convenience. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties are ancestral properties and belonged to the joint family and therefore, they are entitled for an undivided 1/6^th share. They claimed that they were in joint possession of the

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:41567 WP No. 4890 of 2017

¶56

suit properties and hence, valued the suit under Section 35 (2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

¶57

(i) The defendant No.5 filed a written statement admitting the relationship between the parties. In so far the nature of the suit properties was concerned, he contended that the suit item No.14 was the self accusation of Sri Ramachandra Reddy. The suit item No.18 was jointly purchased by defendant No.2 and Sri Sampangirama Reddy, in terms of a sale deed dated 02.05.2001. Similarly, he claimed that the suit item Nos.8 and 13, were the self accusation of Sri Lakshmaiah Reddy. He claimed that, item No.1 was a site given free of cost to defendant No.5, where he had constructed a house and hence, it was the self acquisition of defendant No.5. He contended that item No.19 was jointly purchased by defendant No.5 and Sri Sampangirama Reddy and therefore, it was the self acquisition of the said persons. In so far as item No.20 is concerned, he contended that same was purchased jointly by defendant Nos.1 and 5 and hence, it was self acquisition of the said persons. In so far as item No.15 is concerned, it was contended that the defendant No.5 constructed a house thereon and that same was acquired by the Karnataka

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:41567 WP No. 4890 of 2017

¶59

Industrial Area Development Board. Likewise, similar assertions are made in respect of item Nos.2 and 3 and it was contended that the plaintiffs would did not have any right title or interest therein.

¶60

(ii) The defendant No.9 filed a separate written statement contending that the item No.1 was the self acquisition of defendant No.5, item No.19 was the self acquisition of the defendant Nos.5 and 9 and item No.20 was the self acquisition of defendant Nos.1 and 5. Similarly, item No.2 was the self acquired property of defendant No.9. He claimed that the item No.5 was also the self acquisition of defendant No.1, where the defendant Nos.2 and 3 were allowed to reside. He contended that item No.8 was also self acquisition of defendant No.5. Strangely, he contended that to his knowledge the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 were residing separately, but the joint family properties were not partitioned between them even after the compromise in O.S No.375/2003.

¶61

(iii) After the evidence of PW1 was recorded and the case was set down for cross examination of PW1, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section

¶62

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:41567 WP No. 4890 of 2017

¶63

151 of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint to add following para No.3:

¶64

"3a. Sri Muniswamppa during his life time had acquired suit schedule item Nos.4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 properties from his own earnings and though separate registered sale deeds. It is submitted all the said properties are the self acquired properties of Late Muniswamappa. It is submitted that suit schedule item Nos.1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, 18, 19 and 20 properties are the properties acquired from out of the family income."

¶65

He also sought to replace the words “ancestral properties" wherever found in the plaint with the words ”self acquired property” and the words “joint family properties" wherever found in the plaint with the words "suit schedule properties”.

¶66

(iv) The Trial Court, rejected the application in terms of the impugned order on the ground that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to withdraw an admission and that the application was filed after the trial had begun. Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed.

¶67

Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the amendment sought for was only to explain the assertions made in the plaint. He also contended that in the compromise decree reported in O.S No.375/2003, all the parties had agreed that

¶68

10 -

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:41567 WP No. 4890 of 2017

¶70

the suit properties are the joint family properties. He therefore, contended that none of the defendants would suffer any hardship, if the amendment application is allowed.

¶71

Per contra, learned counsel for the legal representatives of defendant No.2 contended that the plaintiffs had specifically claimed in the plaint that the suit properties are the ancestral properties in the hands of Sri Muniswamappa. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to resile and withdraw the statement and now contend that these properties

¶72

are self acquisition of Sri Muniswamappa. In support of his contentions, he further contended that by way of an amendment no admission can be withdrawn by relying upon the following judgments:

¶73

i) Ram Niranjan Kajarai and ors Vs. Sheo Prakash Kajarai and others - [MANU SC 1066 2015]

¶74

ii) Mugutsab and others Vs. Khansab - [2015 (4) KCCR 3312]

¶75

iii) Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others - [2009 (10) SCC 84]

¶76

iv) E. Raghunathan Vs. R. Sarala - [2014 (4) KCCR 3806]

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC:41567 WP No. 4890 of 2017

¶78

11 -

¶79

v) South Konkan Distilleries and others Vs. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik and others - [AIR 2009 SC 1177]

¶80

I have considered the submissions of learned

¶81

counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the legal representatives of respondent No.2.

¶82

It is true that by way of an amendment, an admission made in pleadings cannot be withdrawn but such admission could be explained. In the case of hand, the plaintiffs had randomly used the words “ancestral properties”, “joint family properties”, without knowing its significance. At one stage, the plaintiffs had mentioned that the suit properties are both ancestral as well as acquired out of the joint family income, but the plaintiffs are now attempting to seek for an amendment to plead that some of the suit properties were the self acquisition of Sri Muniswamappa. The plaintiffs are also trying to seek for an amendment to delete the words “joint family properties”, wherever found in the plaint and read it as suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs have already adduced evidence wherein, PW1 has clearly deposed that all the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the family. Therefore, to now allow the plaintiffs to contend that some of

¶83

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:41567 WP No. 4890 of 2017

¶84

the properties were self acquisition of Sri Muniswamappa, would amount to providing a handle to the plaintiffs to plead a case which is not pleaded originally. Therefore, it was not appropriate at this stage to allow the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. Since it is claimed that suit properties were both ancestral and joint family properties and these suit schedule properties belonged to the joint family, the suit will have to be viewed from that point. In so far as the contentions of legal representatives of respondent No.2, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to withdraw the admission, the legal representatives of respondent No.2 are yet to come on record, as their application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC is yet to be considered. Therefore, objections raised by respondent No.2 are not tenable at this stage.

¶85

In that view of the matter, this Court does not see any reason to interfere the impugned order. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed . However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the impugned order in an appeal that may be filed against the judgment that may be passed in the suit.

¶86

NC: 2024:KHC:41567 WP No. 4890 of 2017

¶87