Allowed¶66

Sri K Rajanna v. Sri M Chandregowda

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025WP/16373/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC; belated amendment application after commencement of trial allowed on terms; admissions in cross-examination (PW1, PW3); partition and separate possession suit; declaration that notarised GPA dated 24.12.2007 and registered sale deed dated 03.01.2009 are sham/fraudulent; permanent injunction; Article 227 certiorari; III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Devanahalli; O.S.No.418/2014; cost Rs.5,000/- to defendant No.2; NC: 2025:KHC:45417.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 27.04.2024 passed on IA.No.12 in O.S.418/2014 set aside; IA.No.12 allowed subject to the petitioners paying cost of Rs.5,000/- to defendant No.2. ¶66

Sri K Rajanna Vs Sri M Chandregowda — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 27.04.2024 passed on IA.No.12 in O.S.418/2014 set aside; IA.No.12 allowed subject to the petitioners paying cost of Rs.5,000/- to defendant No.2.

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli dismissing IA No.12 (application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC for amendment of plaint in O.S.No.418/2014) was liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

The proposed amendment neither withdraws any admission made in the evidence nor introduces any new plea; it merely expands upon the existing averments in support of the reliefs already sought in the plaint.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

The contention that PW1 and PW3 having admitted the defendants' possession over the suit schedule property, the proposed amendment would take away such admission, has no merit.

¶61

Key takeaways

Although the amendment application was filed belatedly, it is required to be allowed on terms; the trial Court, while adjudicating the suit, is required to take note of the admissions in the cross-examination along with the amendment sought.ratio¶65
The proposed amendment neither alters the nature of the suit nor introduces a relief barred by limitation; it would not cause prejudice to the other side but would aid the trial Court to decide the suit comprehensively and on its merits.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), by oral order dated 07.11.2025 in W.P. No.16373/2024 (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 27.04.2024 of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli dismissing IA No.12 in O.S.No.418/2014 — an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint in a partition suit wherein the plaintiffs sought declaration that a notarised GPA dated 24.12.2007 executed by the deceased R. Krishnappa and the registered sale deed dated 03.01.2009 were fraudulent and sham. The Court held that the proposed amendment merely elaborated existing averments in support of reliefs already sought, withdrew no admission made in evidence, introduced no new plea, did not alter the nature of the suit and introduced no relief barred by limitation; the objection founded on admissions by PW1 and PW3 regarding defendants' possession was held to have no merit, and belated filing after commencement of trial was not fatal. IA No.12 was allowed on terms, subject to the petitioners paying cost of Rs.5,000/- to defendant No.2.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.16373/2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K. RAJANNA S/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶9

SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V

¶11

Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. MURALI KUMAR .K S/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶13

SRI. CHANDRA KUMAR .K S/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶14

SRI. SUBRAMANI .K S/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶15

SMT. MEENAKSHI D/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶16

SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶17

SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶18

ALL ARE R/AT. GURAPPANAMATHA ROAD 17TH WARD, VIJAYAPURA TOWN

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024

¶20

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 568135.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR K, ADV.,)

¶25

AND:

¶26

SRI. M. CHANDREGOWDA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT. CHIKKABALLAPURA ROAD VIJAYAPURA TOWN DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶27

SRI. ASHWATHA S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT. LALAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 5682132.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. B.R. VISWANATH, ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED)

¶30

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI C/C III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI DTD 27.04.2024 ON IA 12 IN OS NO.418/14 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.04.2024 passed on IA.No.12 in O.S.No.418/2014 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli C/c II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli.

¶38

Sri.Shivashankar K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition, separate possession and also for relief of declaration that the alleged unregistered, notarized General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 24.12.2007 executed by the deceased Sri.R.Krishnappa in favour of defendant No.1 and alleged registered sale deed dated 03.01.2009 are sham and not binding on the plaintiffs' share and have also sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint, which came

¶39

to be dismissed by the impugned order. It is further

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

submitted that the relief of declaration, alleging that the GPA and the sale deed were obtained fraudulently was not adequately supported with pleadings in the plaint, necessitating an application for amendment to elaborate the relevant facts. However, the trial Court, solely on the ground that the proposed amendment pertained to basic pleadings which could have been filed at an earlier stage, proceeded to dismiss the application. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶44

Per contra, Sri.B.R.Viswanath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of trial Court and submits that the detailed objections were filed to the said application before the trial Court contending that there was no impediment preventing the plaintiffs from incorporating these facts at the time of filing of the suit, and that the belated filing of the amendment application amounts to an abuse of the process of law and on the ground of delay, the application is liable to be rejected. It is submitted that the plaintiffs

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

have already led the evidence and the documents are marked, hence, question of allowing the application after commencement of the trial does not arise. It is further submitted that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property, which has been tenanted to a third party who pays rent to them, and that the assertions now made in the amendment application are contrary to the established facts. It is further submitted that PW1 and PW3, in their cross-examination, have clearly admitted the defendants’ possession over the property. The present application is filed decade after seeking relief of declaration which is in effect barred by limitation and considering these aspects, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application which does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The petitioners have filed a suit for partition and

¶53

separate possession of the suit schedule property and further relief to declare that the alleged, unregistered notarised General Power of Attorney dated 24.12.2007 executed by the deceased Sri.R.Krishnappa in favour of defendant No.1 and alleged registered sale deed dated 03.01.2009 is obtained by fraud and those documents are sham and do not bind the plaintiffs' share and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering or creating third party interest over the suit schedule property and further relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering and obstructing the plaintiffs to enjoy the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the defendants have filed a detailed written statement denying the plaintiffs assertions with regard to right over the suit schedule property. It is specifically pleaded that based on the power of attorney dated 24.12.2007 a valid registered sale deed was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

defendant No.2 on 03.01.2009 and sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶58

During the pendency of the suit, when the

¶59

matter was posted for cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses, an application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') seeking amendment of the plaint. A perusal of the application indicates that the plaintiffs intended only to elaborate the facts to support their prayer in the plaint with regard to the execution of the sale deed

¶60

based on the GPA. The proposed amendment neither withdraws any admission made in the evidence nor introduces any new plea; rather, it merely expands upon the existing averments in support of the reliefs already sought. The contention of the respondents/defendants that

¶61

PW1 and PW3 have admitted the defendants’ possession over the suit schedule property and the proposed amendment would take away such admission has no merit.

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

The trial Court, while adjudicating the suit, is

¶66

required to take note of the fact about the admissions in the cross-examination and the amendment sought now. Insofar as filing of application belatedly, I am of the considered view that the said application is required to be allowed on terms. The proposed amendment neither alters the nature of the suit nor introduces a relief barred by limitation. The present application for amendment would not cause any prejudice to the other side but it would aid the trial Court to decide the suit comprehensively and on its merits. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . Impugned order dated 27.04.2024 passed on IA.No.12 in O.S.418/2014 is hereby set aside. Consequently IA.No.12 is allowed subject to the petitioners paying cost of Rs.5,000/- to defendant No.2.

¶67

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶68

ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri K Rajanna v. Sri M Chandregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Rajanna v. Sri M Chandregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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. Gururaja Seva Mandali Vs 1008 Sri. Raghuvijaya Teertha

Puttarangaiah Vs Sushelamma

H.T. Mallikarjuna Swamy Vs M. Jayanna