Plaintiffs sought amendment to delete their adverse-possession declaration prayer at the stage of arguments; earlier withdrawal application stood rejected and unchallenged. Court held defendants' accrued rights and similar defence in a connected suit barred deletion; writ petition dismissed.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:6161 WP No. 53243 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 53243 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: high court of karnataka
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O YARADETHINAHALLI VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
R/O YARADETHINAHALLI VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
NC: 2024:KHC:6161 WP No. 53243 of 2017
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 13.10.2017 MADE ON I.A.NO.VIII IN O.S.NO.25/2014 BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARAPANAHALLI AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.25/2014 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Harapanahalli hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for brevity), are impugning the order dated 13.10.2017 rejecting IA No.8 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint.
adverse possession. The plaintiffs are dominus-litis. Therefore, they are entitled to delete the said prayer. They are not seeking to add any additional prayer. Under such circumstances, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. The trial Court should not have rejected the said prayer. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:6161 WP No. 53243 of 2017
already reached the stage of arguments. At this stage, the petitioners cannot be permitted to delete the prayer seeking declaration. No reasons are assigned as to why the said amendment is sought for.
have filed the suit O.S.No.60/2016 seeking declaration of their title and for possession of 2 acres of land which is illegally encroached by the petitioners. The said suit is also pending consideration and the petitioners who are defendants in the said suit have taken similar defence of perfecting their title by adverse possession. Under such circumstances, the trial Court rightly rejected IA No.8 which do not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:6161 WP No. 53243 of 2017
alleging that the petitioners have illegally encroached the said portion. Both the parties have taken specific defence and trial in both the suits is completed. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the petitioners is now at the stage of arguments.
petitioners had filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC, seeking to withdraw prayer No.1 seeking declaration of their title by adverse possession, with liberty to file fresh petition. The said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.10.2016. Admittedly the petitioners have not challenged the said order. On the other hand, they filed IA No.8 on 25.10.2016 seeking amendment of the plaint i.e., to delete prayer No.(a) seeking declaration of their title by adverse possession.
NC: 2024:KHC:6161 WP No. 53243 of 2017
contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners being the plaintiffs in the suit are dominus-litis or master of their case and are entitle to delete the prayer in the case, cannot be accepted. The right has already accrued in favour of the defendants to take advantage of the contentions taken by the plaintiffs. Same cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by deleting the prayer for declaration of title by adverse possession, that too when similar defence was taken by the petitioners in O.S.No.60/2016. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which do not
call for any interference. Accordingly, petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
PN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs could amend the plaint to delete the prayer for declaration of title by adverse possession after an earlier withdrawal application was rejected and unchallenged.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. G. Gangamma
Sri G. Hanumanthappa
Sri Taledahalli Mudukappa
Sri Taledahalli Hanumavva
Sri Taledahalli Goneppa
Sri T. Taledahalli Honnappa
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
