Allowed

Sri. Ramachandrappa v. Smt. Shyamalamma

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2024WP/9997/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a final decree proceeding, respondent sought amendment deleting certain scheduled properties from the FDP petition. The High Court held that parties with fixed 1/3rd shares per the appellate decree cannot alter the schedule via amendment; rights may be given up through submissions instead, and quashed the trial court's order allowing amendment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.03.2024 allowing I.A.No.4 set aside; I.A.No.4 dismissed.

Sri. Ramachandrappa Vs Smt. Shyamalamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:19764 WP No. 9997 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.9997 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT MALLU VILLAGE JAMNGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDLAGATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. SHYAMALAMMA D/O. LATE NANJAPPA W/O. SRIRAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT MANDIBELE VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 105.

¶13

SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O. LATE NANJAPPA W/O. MUNINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT CHOKKANDEHALLY VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:19764 WP No. 9997 of 2024

¶17

(BY SRI N. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AND QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT SHIDLAGHATTA ON THE FILE OF F.D.P.NO.19/2022 VIDE ORDER DATED 18-03-2024, ANNEXURE-A, IN RESPECT OF I.A.NO.4 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE SAID I.A.NO.4 AS PRAYED FOR IN THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SAID I.A.NO.4 ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by

¶22

the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Shidlaghatta on I.A.No.4 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in FDP No.19/2022, defendant no.1 therein has preferred this writ petition.

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that a partition suit has been contested between the parties and the judgment delivered in RA No.73/2009 has attained finality. As per the

¶24

judgment in R.A.No.73/2009, the petitioner as well as respondent nos.1 and 2 have 1/3rd rights over the suit

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19764 WP No. 9997 of 2024

¶26

schedule properties. Subsequently, respondent no.1 herein preferred FDP No.19/2022 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Shidlaghatta for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds in accordance with the order passed in R.A.No.73/2009.

¶27

It is submitted that each of the parties have 1/3rd rights over the suit schedule properties and initially in the FDP, respondent no.1 herein mentioned the suit schedule properties correctly. However, thereafter, she filed an application for amendment of the petition wherein she has sought to modify the suit schedule properties and the trial court without application of mind has allowed it. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that allowing the amendment application as prayed for by respondent no.1 herein has resulted in some of the properties over which the Appellate Court has held that the petitioner has got 1/3rd rights over the same has been deleted and it will only lead to multiplicity of proceedings and it will result in the petitioner losing his rights over a portion of the property.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:19764 WP No. 9997 of 2024

¶31

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents justifies the order passed by the trial court and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶32

The question that arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether the trial court erred in allowing the amendment application as prayed for?

¶33

A perusal of the order passed by the trial court indicates that the trial court has considered Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and as it permits the parties to amend the petition before commencement of trial has allowed the amendment application.

¶34

Admittedly, the petitioner as well as the respondents have 1/3rd rights over the properties mentioned in the schedule to R.A.No.73/2009. Initially, the petition filed in FDP No.19/2022 contained the same schedule properties as it is mentioned in R.A.No.73/2009. However, the same is sought to be altered by respondent no.1 herein by way of the amendment application. The same is not permissible. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that she

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19764 WP No. 9997 of 2024

¶36

has given up certain rights in some of the properties, and hence, she does not want to include the same in the FDP proceedings. In the course of the proceedings, she is always at liberty to make necessary submission to the trial court and give up her rights over some of the properties concerned, if she so desires in favour of other contesting parties. However, it is improper to allow the same to be deleted from the petition. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the trial court is required to be set aside.

¶37

Hence, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed;

¶40

(ii) The impugned order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Shidlaghatta on I.A.No.4 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in FDP No.19/2022 is hereby set aside;

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:19764 WP No. 9997 of 2024

¶43

(iii) I.A.No.4 filed by respondent no.1 herein in FDP

¶44

No.19/2022 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge &

¶45

JMFC, Shidlaghatta is hereby dismissed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

hkh.

Sri. Ramachandrappa v. Smt. Shyamalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ramachandrappa v. Smt. Shyamalamma

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.Srinivas Vs Smt.v.Vijayalakshmi

Sri. Kantharaju Vs Sri. Udayabhaskar

Asha Kumar Vs Smt. Manmohan Kaur Ajith

Bar Association (Registered), Sagar, Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Sri L Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Subrahamanya Jingade Vs the Secretary ( Land Acquisition)