Sri. S. Veeranna v. Sri. Bommanna

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2025WP/24728/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; writ petition (GM-CPC); amendment of plaint; Order VI Rule 17 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; Civil Judge and JMFC Tumakuru; O.S. No.365/2018; declaration of title; 18 guntas Sy. No.101/1A; 2½ guntas Sy. No.101/10; partition deed; cross-examination admission; PW1; no interference with interlocutory order; complete adjudication; vagueness of amendment; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No interference is warranted merely because a statement possibly made in cross-examination could inure to the petitioner's advantage, especially when the civil Court has observed that the suit is for declaration of title; the rival contentions on title must be decided by the civil Court on evidence from both sides, and the amendment should enable a complete adjudication of the controversy. ¶¶43

Sri. S. Veeranna Vs Sri. Bommanna — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:43907 WP No. 24728 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 24728 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. S. VEERANNA S/O LATE SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT YELADADLU VILLAGE HALDODDERI POST, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 128.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V B.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. BOMMANNA S/O LATE DODDAVEERANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT YELADADLU VILLAGE HALDODDERI POST, KORA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 128.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:43907 WP No. 24728 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR ORDERS TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2025, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, AT TUMAKURU, PASSED ON LA. NO.9, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT / PLAINTIFF, IN O.S. NO.365/ 2018, FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W. SECTION 151 OF CPC, FOR AMENDMENT OF PLAINT, VIDE ANNEXURE - F; B. REJECT THE L.A. NO.9, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT / PLAINTIFF, IN O.S. NO.365/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT TUMAKURU, FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W. SECTION 151 OF CPC, FOR AMENDMENT OF PLAINT, VIDE ANNEXURE - D.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:43907 WP No. 24728 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is by the defendant in O.S. No.365/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge, Tumakuru [for short, ' the civil Court ']. The defendant is aggrieved by the civil Court's order dated 30.07.2025, and the civil Court, by this impugned order, has allowed the respondent's application [ I.A. No. IX ] under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] permitting the respondent to amend the plaint to include an assertion that the petitioner has created a partition deed and certain other documents relating to the suit schedule property though he does not have title or possession over this property while also contending that the documents created by the petitioner does not bind him.

¶27

The respondent's suit is for the declaration of title to two extents of land with a common boundary as is mentioned in the schedule

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:43907 WP No. 24728 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

appended to the plaint. These two parcels of land measure 3 guntas in Sy. No. 101/1A and 2½ guntas in Sy. No.101/10 of Yaladadlu Village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. The respondent has also mentioned kharab appended to the land in Sy. No.101/10 and the total extent of the land in Sy. No. 101/1A. The petitioner has filed his written statement asserting that he is the owner of 18 guntas in Sy. No.101/1A and the respondent is a stranger to this extent. The civil Court has framed Issues , and the respondent has also begun his evidence. He has examined himself as PW1, and he is cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner on 13.08.2024.

¶32

Sri V B Siddaramaiah, the learned counsel

¶33

for the petitioner, argues to support the petition contending that [a] even according to the documents marked by the respondent [ Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2 ], the petitioner is the owner of land measuring 18 guntas excluding kharab of the land in Survey No.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:43907 WP No. 24728 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

101/1A of Yaladadlu Village and the respondent is the owner of the land measuring 2½ guntas in Survey No.101/10 of the same village, [b] the respondent in his cross examination has admitted that the extent measuring 18 guntas in Sy. No.101/1A belongs to the petitioner [c] the proposed amendment is vague inasmuch as the respondent has not even stated the details of the documents purportedly created by the petitioner.

¶38

The question whether there must be

¶39

interference with the civil Court's order or not is examined in the light of these contentions and on perusal of records. The respondent's case, as could be seen from the plaint assertions, is that upon a survey, he is informed that he has possession of 3 guntas in Sy. No.101/1A of Yaladadlu Village and that his right to be in possession of this 3 guntas and 2½ guntas in Sy. No.101/10 is under the said Sale Deed dated 30.05.1996. The petitioner, asserting title

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:43907 WP No. 24728 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

to the entire 18 guntas in Sy. No. 101 of Yaladadlu village, has denied the respondent's possession. These rival contentions must be decided by the civil Court based on the evidence from both sides. As such, this Court opines that merely because possibly a statement is made in the cross-examination which could inure to the petitioner's advantage, there is no reason to interfere, especially when the civil Court has observed that the suit is for the declaration of title. The amendment should enable a complete adjudication of the controversy between the petitioner and the respondent.

¶44

As regards the petitioner's case that the proposed amendment is vague, it would suffice for this Court to observe that if that is indeed so, the petitioner can take advantage of the same for the outcome in the suit. As such, the petition is disposed of observing that the civil Court shall decide on the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:43907 WP No. 24728 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

merits in the light of the evidence that is led before

¶49

the civil Court.

¶50

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶51