Dismissed¶44

H.T. Mallikarjuna Swamy v. M. Jayanna

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025WP/15540/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru, 07.11.2025, Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.; Writ Petition No.15540/2025 (GM-CPC); certiorari under Article 227 against order dated 26.03.2025 of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hosadurga, allowing I.A.No.20 in O.S.No.78/2016 (suit for declaration based on will dated 29.07.2002; sale deed dated 24.06.1994); framing of additional issue on limitation; specific plea in paragraph 10 of written statement; evidence of defendant No.2; Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC; discretion of trial Court; petition rejected (dismissed).

What did the court decide?

Paragraph No.10 of the written statement filed by the respondents-defendants contains a specific assertion that the relief sought by the petitioner-plaintiff is barred by limitation, and the evidence of defendant No.2 reiterates the assertion with regard to limitation.

H.T. Mallikarjuna Swamy Vs M. Jayanna — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45651 W.P. No.15540/2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.15540/2025 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶8

H.T. MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY S/O LATE M. THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT BANGARAGIRI NILAYA VINAYAKA EXTENSION HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA-577527.

¶9

(BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADV.,)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

M. JAYANNA S/O LATE K.H. MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT I.U.D.P LAYOUT REVENUE NAGARA

¶13

CHITHRADURGA TOWN- 577 527.

¶14

M. PARAMESHWARAPPA LATE K.H. MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT SJM LAYOUT HOSADURGA TOWN-577 527.

¶15

SMT. YALLAMMA W/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT BOKIKERE MAJURE KUNTAKENCHAIAHNA HATTI KASABA HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK- 577 526.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:45651 W.P. No.15540/2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. N. PREMAKUMARI D/O M. NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS HOUSE HOLD WORK R/AT DURGAMMANA BEEDI HOSADURGA TOWN HOSADURGA TALUK,- 577 527 NOW R/AT CHIKKAMAGALORE TOWN.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 26.03.2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT HOSADURGA ON IA NO.20 FILED IN OS NO.78/2016 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS IA NO.20 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.2 & ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶26

i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court Hosadurga on I.A.No.20 filed in O.S.No.78/2016 (produced as Annexure-A) and consequently to dismiss IA No.20 filed by the Defendant No.2; and

¶27

ii) Pass such other orders or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45651 W.P. No.15540/2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Sri.Kethan Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶31

petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration against the respondents-defendants. During the pendency of the said suit, after commencement of trial, the respondents-defendants filed an application seeking to frame an additional issue on limitation. It is submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that in the absence of any specific pleading in the written statement, the issue with regard to limitation cannot be framed. It is further submitted that a stray sentence is referred in the written statement. It is also submitted that in the absence of any specific pleading with regard to limitation as to how the suit is barred by limitation, the trial Court ought not to have framed the additional issue. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶32

I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45651 W.P. No.15540/2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The pleadings and material on record indicate

¶36

that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.78/2016 against the respondents-defendants seeking to declare that the petitioner-plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties by virtue of will dated 29.07.2002 executed by grandmother of petitionerplaintiff Smt.Tholasamma in favour of the petitionerplaintiff and further relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 24.06.1994 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule property is not binding on the right and title of petitionerplaintiff and consequential relief of injunction.

¶37

A perusal of the written statement filed by the

¶38

respondents-defendants clearly indicate that in paragraph No.10 of the written statement a specific assertion is made that the relief sought by the petitioner-plaintiff is barred by limitation. The evidence of defendant No.2 also reiterates the assertion with regard to limitation. The trial Court considering the assertion made in paragraph No.10

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45651 W.P. No.15540/2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

of the written statement with regard to limitation,

¶42

proceeded to exercise its discretionary power and allowed the application filed under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC and framed the additional issue. The additional issue is "whether the defendant No.2 proves that, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation?", which is framed by the trial Court is based on

¶43

the pleadings on record and the parties are required to prove the same by adducing evidence. In my considered view, the exercise of discretion by the trial Court does not warrant any interference as the same is strictly in consonance with the pleadings and as per law. Hence, I do

¶44

not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly rejected .

¶45

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶46

BSR

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

H.T. Mallikarjuna Swamy v. M. Jayanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.T. Mallikarjuna Swamy v. M. Jayanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Ayub-Ur-Rehman Vs Mrs. Kaveri Chandrappa

Smt K Padmavathi Vs Sri K Sridhar

Sri T G Ramesh Vs Sri S Ananda

Sri K Rajanna Vs Sri M Chandregowda

Sri. Gururaja Seva Mandali Vs 1008 Sri. Raghuvijaya Teertha

Puttarangaiah Vs Sushelamma