Allowed

Smt G Manjula v. Sri T Prakash

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2024WP/8643/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff in a permanent injunction suit sought amendment to add a declaration claim over a 3X28 feet strip of land after defendants claimed rights over it in their written statement. The trial Court rejected the amendment solely because no additional document was produced. The High Court held no prejudice would be caused and allowed the amendment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.01.2017 set aside; amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC allowed; petitioner permitted to carry out amendment of plaint.

Smt G Manjula Vs Sri T Prakash — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:4957 WP No. 8643 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 8643 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT .G. MANJULA W/O CHANDRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK - 560 067 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI: BASAVANNA .M.D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: high court of karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. T. PRAKASH S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶14

SMT. MANJULA W/O T. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK - 560 067 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(R1 & R2 - H/S V/O DT.14/7/23 & 20/1/23)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN O.S.NO.479/2014 DTD:2.1.2017 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT HOSKOTE IN RESPECT OF AMENDMENT APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH IS PRODUCED UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:4957 WP No. 8643 of 2017

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The plaintiff in O.S.No.479/2014 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hoskote (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for brevity), is impugning the order dated 02.01.2017 rejecting the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint.

¶22

Heard Sri Basavanna M.D., learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents were served, remained unrepresented. Perused the materials on record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner as plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.479/2014 seeking grant of permanent injunction against the defendants. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that she had purchased the suit property bearing property No.124, measuring 39X25 feet, situated at Samethanahalli Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District with the boundaries mentioned therein. The defendants have appeared before the trial Court and filed their written statement. Even though the defendants have admitted that the

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4957 WP No. 8643 of 2017

¶25

plaintiff has purchased the suit property, contended that they

¶26

are disputing the right of the plaintiff over the property measuring 3X28 feet. They assert their right over the said piece of land inspite of the registered sale deed. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff was compelled to seek amendment of the plaint to put forth her contention that the said strip of land measuring 3X28 feet is part and parcel of the suit property which she purchased under the registered sale deed and for declaration that the said 3X28 feet of land, morefully described in Schedule 'B' belongs to the plaintiff and she is the absolute owner in possession of the same. The matter is still at the stage of framing issues. No prejudice would be caused to the defendants, if the amendment is allowed. It will not change the cause of action, nor the nature of the suit. But the trial Court proceeded to dismiss the application solely on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced any additional document in support of the claim made in the amended plaint. It has not taken into consideration the fact that in view of the contention taken by the defendants in the written statement, there was a need for getting the plaint amended and to seek declaration of her right. No prejudice would be caused to the defendants, if

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:4957 WP No. 8643 of 2017

¶29

the application is allowed. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶30

On perusal of the materials on record, it is clear that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit property bearing No.124, measuring 39X25 feet with the boundaries mentioned therein. It is stated that to the western side of the suit property, the property belonging to the defendants is situated. The defendants have appeared before the trial Court and filed the written statement taking a specific contention regarding the strip of land measuring 3X28 feet and asserted their right over the same by denying the right of the plaintiff. It is stated that this has necessitated the plaintiff to file an application seeking amendment of the plaint. Copy of the written statement is also produced for perusal of the Court, where the defendants have asserted that they are in possession of 3 feet strip of land on the eastern side of their property and the plaintiff is not having any right over the same. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff filed the application seeking amendment of the plaint, pleading about her right over the suit property measuring 39X25 feet purchased under the registered sale deed dated

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:4957 WP No. 8643 of 2017

¶33

04.02.2011 and also her right over the strip of land measuring 3X28 feet morefully described in Schedule 'B' which is part and parcel of the original suit property for seeking declaration in respect of the same.

¶34

Since the plaintiff is seeking declaration and permanent injunction over plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule property on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 04.02.2011, I do not find any justification for the trial Court to dismiss the application solely on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced any document in support of her contention. The trial Court also referred to disposal of the appeal MA No.82/2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District vide judgment dated 30.01.2015. The said appeal where the petitioner is the appellant was allowed directing both the parties to maintain status-quo . The order directing both the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the disputed 3 feet of land on the western portion of the suit property was set aside and the plaintiff was restrained from putting up any construction in the disputed area, directing to keep the said portion vacant till disposal of the suit. However, the said order cannot come in the way of plaintiff seeking the

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:4957 WP No. 8643 of 2017

¶36

relief of declaration and permanent injunction as now sought to be claimed, as it is for the plaintiff to prove her contention as taken in the proposed amendment. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the application is allowed as the trial Court is required to frame necessary issues placing the burden on the parties concerned on the basis of the contentions taken by them in their respective pleadings. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned order rejecting the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. Writ petition is allowed .

¶39

ii. The impugned order dated 02.01.2017 passed in O.S.No.479/2014 by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hoskote, is set aside.

¶40

iii. Consequently, the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC filed by the petitioner/plaintiff

¶41

seeking amendment of the plaint, is allowed.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:4957 WP No. 8643 of 2017

¶44

Petitioner is permitted to carryout the amendment in

¶45

the plaint.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Smt G Manjula v. Sri T Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt G Manjula v. Sri T Prakash

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 C Raje Gowda Vs M/ S Kapil Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd.

Parvathamma Vs Nandish. K. S.

Smt M Bharathi Vs M/S Saishiva Hotels Inc.

Smt. Puttalakshmamma Vs Sri. Narayanappa

Sri. Hanumanthappa Vs Sri Ramappa

Sri Adinarayanareddy Vs Smt Chikkanagamma