Dismissed¶52

Sri. Channashetty v. Sri. Thammannashetty

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025WP/15714/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru, WP No. 15714 of 2021 (GM-CPC), decided 15-10-2025 by S Vishwajith Shetty J. Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in a partition suit (O.S.No.2/2010, Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Nagamangala): left-out ancestral/joint family property may be added even at final decree stage to avoid multiplicity of proceedings; writ against order allowing I.A.No.XXI dismissed; defendants free to file additional written statement; no precedent cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

In the defendants' objection to I.A.No.XXI, it was nowhere stated that the properties which are the subject matter of the amendment are not the ancestral properties of the family. ¶44

Sri. Channashetty Vs Sri. Thammannashetty — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing I.A.No.XXI under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint schedule by including three other alleged ancestral properties, notwithstanding the plaintiffs' earlier assertion in the plaint that no property other than the original schedule property remained unpartitioned, and the belated filing of the application at the stage of plaintiffs' evidence.

¶39

Court's answer

In the defendants' objection to I.A.No.XXI, it was nowhere stated that the properties which are the subject matter of the amendment are not the ancestral properties of the family.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Nor was it contended in the objection that the said properties had been subjected to partition between family members at any point of time.

¶44

Key takeaways

It is trite that in a suit for partition any ancestral or joint family property which is left out can be brought to partition even at the stage of final decree proceedings, a principle followed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.ratio¶45
On these circumstances, the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing I.A.No.XXI.ratio¶49
Once the plaintiff's amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed, it remains always open to the defendants to file an additional written statement and contest the suit.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Article 226 dismissed (S Vishwajith Shetty J., High Court of Karnataka, 15-10-2025). Petitioners, defendant nos.3 to 5 in O.S.No.2/2010 (suit by respondents for partition and separate possession), challenged the order dated 15.04.2021 of the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Nagamangala allowing I.A.No.XXI under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, whereby the plaint schedule was amended to include three other alleged ancestral properties at the stage of plaintiffs' evidence. Held: (i) the contesting defendants' objection nowhere stated that the amendment properties were not ancestral family properties, nor that they had ever been partitioned; (ii) in a partition suit, ancestral/joint family property left out can be brought to partition even at the stage of final decree proceedings, this principle being followed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings; (iii) the Trial Court was therefore fully justified in allowing the amendment, and it remains open to the defendants to file an additional written statement and contest the suit. All pending interlocutory applications in the writ petition do not survive for consideration.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:40826 WP No. 15714 of 2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 15714 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI CHANNASHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶10

SRI NAGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶11

SRI LAKSHMANASHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶12

PETITIONER Nos. 1 TO 3 ARE SONS OF SRI BELURASHETTY.

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KADABAHALLI BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 802.

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI P.B. APPAIAH, ADV.)

¶16

AND:

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

SRI THAMMANNASHETTY S/O LATE RAMSHETTI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶19

SRI RANGAMMA W/O LATE SRI CHANNASHETTY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

¶20

RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DEAD AND RESPONDENT NO.3 IS THE ONLY SURVIVING LEGAL HEIR SINCE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:40826 WP No. 15714 of 2021

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ALREADY ON RECORD.

¶25

SMT. PUTTALAKSHAMMA D/O LATE SRI CHANNASHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶26

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KADABAHALLI BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 802.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI NANJAPPAN B, ADV.)

¶29

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOCALL FOR RECORDSSET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-E DTD.15.4.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NAGAMANGALA ON IA NO.21 IN O.S.NO.02/2010 CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION VIDE IA NO.21 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This writ petition under 226 of the Constitution of

¶33

India is filed by defendant nos.3 to 5 with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 15.04.2021 passed on I.A.No.XX1 in O.S.No.2/2010 by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Nagamangala.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40826 WP No. 15714 of 2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The respondents herein had filed O.S.No.2/2010

¶38

before the jurisdictional civil Court seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of plaint schedule property. In the said suit, I.A.No.XXI was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint and include 3 other ancestral properties. The said application was opposed by contesting defendants by filing objection. The Trial Court vide the order impugned dated 15.04.2021 has allowed the said application and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners / defendant nos.3 to 5 are before this Court.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that plaintiffs have specifically asserted in the plaint that except the original plaint schedule property there is no other property that was not subjected to partition. Therefore, it was not permissible for the respondents to file application seeking amendment of the suit schedule property for including three other properties contending that they are ancestral properties. The application is filed belatedly and therefore the Trial Court was not justified in allowing the application.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:40826 WP No. 15714 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents / plaintiffs has argued in support of the impugned order and prays to dismiss the petition.

¶44

O.S.No.2/2010 is filed by the respondents herein for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule property. When the suit was at the stage of plaintiffs' evidence I.A.No.XXI was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint schedule by including three other items which are said to be ancestral properties of the parties to the suit. In the objection filed by the contesting defendants to I.A.No.XXI it is nowhere stated that properties which are subject matter of the amendment are not the ancestral properties of the family. It is also not contended that the said properties were now subjected to partition between family members at any point of time.

¶45

It is trite that in a suit for partition any ancestrial or joint family property which is left out can be brought to partition even at the stage of final decree proceedings. This principle is followed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:40826 WP No. 15714 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

was fully justified in allowing I.A.No.XXI. It is always open to

¶50

the defendants to file additional written statement if any and contest the suit, in the event, the application by plaintiff filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is allowed. Therefore, I do not

¶51

find any good ground to entertain the petition.

¶52