Dismissed

Sri. Narayanappa v. Smt. Narayanamma

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024WP/7103/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an order allowing an amendment application in a partition suit. The court held that the amendment was necessary to correct an inadvertent error in property descriptions and grants is mandatory, though the petitioner must be required to expedite proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the plaintiff was directed to present evidence and witnesses expeditiously, and the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within three months of conclusion o

Sri. Narayanappa Vs Smt. Narayanamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45639 WP No. 7103 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7103 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NARAYANAPPA SON OF LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA @ DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶8

SRI.BATHEPPA SON OF LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA @ DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT APPASANDRA VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563 133.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. NARAYANAMMA DAUGHTER OF CHIKKANNA, WIFE OF MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT KODIRAMASANDRA VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK-563 103.

¶15

SMT.VENKATAMMA DAUGHTER OF CHIKKANNA, WIFE OF SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR PULIKESHI VARAPATHRIKE OFFICE, GOWRIPET, KOLAR-563101.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45639 WP No. 7103 of 2023

¶17

SMT. BHARATHAMMA DAUGHTER OF CHIKKANNA, WIFE OF SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT APPASANDRA VILLAGE, NARASAPUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563 133.

¶18

SRI. SHANTHA KUMAR S/O NARAYANASAMY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶19

SRI. SHIVA KUMAR S/O NARAYANASAMY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶20

RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT MUNESHWARA NAGAR, KOLAR TOWN, KOLAR-563 101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. KRISHNA SWAMY S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; VIDE ORDER DATED 26.10.2023, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2023 MADE ON IA NO.32 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S NO.412/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT KOLAR, PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45639 WP No. 7103 of 2023

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The defendant Nos.6 and 7 in O.S. No.412/2007 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Kolar (henceforth referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) have filed this petition challenging an order dated 07.02.2023, by which, an application (I.A No.32) filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) was allowed.

¶29

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioners were defendant Nos.6 and 7 while respondent No.1 herein was the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 5 were defendant Nos.2 to 5 respectively, before the Trial Court.

¶30

The suit in O.S. No.412/2007 was filed for partition of the plaintiff’s share in the suit schedule properties. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.6 and 7. When the suit was set down for arguments, the plaintiff filed an application

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:45639 WP No. 7103 of 2023

¶33

(I.A. No.31) under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC., to amend the plaint and the schedule in the suit. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court on 07.02.2020 which was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.5466/2020. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.01.2022 with liberty to the petitioner No.1 herein to file a fresh detailed application for amendment of the plaint before the Trial Court. Following this, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.32 seeking for the amendment of the schedule to the plaint concerning suit item Nos.1 and 4 and regarding share of the plaintiff in the suit properties, to substitute '1/4^th' in place of '1/5^th' in para No.4 of the plaint as well as in the prayer portion of the plaint. Similarly, with regard to the share of defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the suit properties to substitute '1/3^rd' in place of '1/4^th' in para No.4 of the plaint. That application was allowed by the impugned order.

¶34

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.6 and

¶35

7 are before this Court in this writ petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for the defendant Nos.6 and

¶37

7/petitioners submitted that the application (I.A. No.32) was

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45639 WP No. 7103 of 2023

¶39

filed by the plaintiff at a belated stage and that too when the suit was set down for arguments. He submitted that the suit item No.1 was acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). He submits that the plaintiff could not have sought for amendment of the suit schedule at a belated stage.

¶40

Learned counsel for the plaintiff / respondent No.1 on the other hand contended that the application (I.A. No.31) was initially filed at the stage when the suit was set down for evidence. However, the said application was rejected by the Trial Court. Thereafter, this Court in W.P No.5466/2020 granted liberty to the petitioner herein to file a fresh detailed application for amendment of the plaint before the Trial Court and accordingly, the instant application was filed. He contends that the survey number of the land in Appasandra was wrongly assigned to the land in Achatanahalli which was an inadvertent error. He contends that allowing the application (I.A. No.32) for amendment would not prejudice the defendants in any manner.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:45639 WP No. 7103 of 2023

¶43

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.6 and 7 / petitioners and the learned counsel for the plaintiff / respondent No.1.

¶44

A perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application shows that the general power of attorney holder of the plaintiff instead of describing the property at Appasandra village had described it as lying within Achatanahalli and property at Achatanahalli was mentioned as property situate at Appasandra village. This was an inadvertent error and without rectifying the error, the Trial Court cannot pass an effective decree. Therefore, the amendment was necessary for the adjudication of the suit effectually. However, having regard to the fact that the plaintiff had filed the application (I.A. No.32) at a belated stage, the plaintiff needs to be placed on terms so that the plaintiff does not indulge in protracting the proceedings. There is no error committed by the Trial Court in passing the impugned order warranting interference in this writ petition.

¶45

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The plaintiff shall

¶46

adduce further evidence, if so advised before the Trial Court on

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:45639 WP No. 7103 of 2023

¶49

the next date of hearing and shall also make the witness available for cross-examination by the defendants on the same day. The Trial Court is requested to dispose off the suit – O.S. No.412/2007 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of conclusion of the

¶50

evidence.

¶51

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶52

SMA

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

Sri. Narayanappa v. Smt. Narayanamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Narayanappa v. Smt. Narayanamma

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

Sri Ullas Kottary Vs Suthan

Sri. Reddappa Vs Smt. Parvathamma

Sri. Hanumanthe Gowda Vs Smt. Mani Bai

Smt Shobha B Vs Smt Devamma

Ajaya Marodia Vs H N Suguna

B C Kiran Vs H R Rudramma