Dismissed¶57

Ramachandrappa v. H G Basavarajappa

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2025WP/2734/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of written statement after commencement of trial; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC post-amendment due-diligence proviso not complied with; amendment held unnecessary as denial of execution of sale deed already pleaded; suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction; writ of certiorari under Articles 226/227 refused; trial court order affirmed in effect; WP dismissed, I.As. closed; Davanagere civil court; Lalitha Kanneganti J; NC: 2025:KHC:4999; WP No. 2734 of 2020 (GM-CPC); cross-examination of PW-3 completed before amendment sought.

What did the court decide?

The trial court rightly dismissed the amendment application on the first ground that defendant No.1 did not plead why the amendment could not be sought before the commencement of the trial, as mandated under the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. ¶52

Ramachandrappa Vs H G Basavarajappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court rightly dismissed I.A.No.XII filed by defendant No.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement after commencement of trial, given the absence of a plea of due diligence and the fact that the denial of execution of the sale deed was already on record. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

¶52

Ratio / Principle

On the second ground also the trial court acted rightly: the denial of execution of the sale deed is already on record, and the trial court observed on both grounds that the amendment was not required in the facts and circumstances of the case and rightly dismissed the application.

¶55

Key takeaways

Finding no reasons to interfere with the trial court's order, this Court dismissed the writ petition and directed that all I.As. in the writ petition stand closed.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, decided by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.) on 04.02.2025, challenging the order dated 06.11.2019 of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere dismissing I.A.No.XII in O.S.No.72/2015. The suit by respondent No.1/plaintiff sought declaration of absolute ownership and permanent injunction; defendant No.1 (petitioner) had already denied executing any sale deed in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 3 in his written statement. After trial commenced and cross-examination of PW-3 concluded, defendant No.1 sought to amend the written statement to expand that denial. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that (i) under the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC the applicant had not pleaded that, despite due diligence, the facts could not have been raised before commencement of trial, and (ii) since the denial of execution of the sale deed was already on record, the proposed facts were not necessary for deciding the controversy. The High Court endorsed both grounds, found no reasons to interfere with the trial court's order, dismissed the writ petition and closed all pending I.A.s.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:4999 WP No. 2734 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 2734 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, HIRETOGALERI VILLAGE, MAYAKONDA HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK-577 514

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. G.J.SUNKAPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

H.G.BASAVARAJAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED 71 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, MAYAKOND HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK-577 224

¶14

SRI. G.M. RANGAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURSIT, GANJIGATTE VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526

¶15

SRI. NATARAJ S/O M. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, GANJIGATTE VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526

¶16

SRI. G.C. LOKESHAPPA @ LOKESHWARAPPA, S/O M.RANGAPPA,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:4999 WP No. 2734 of 2020

¶19

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, GANJIGATTE VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526

¶20

SRI. G.L. CHANNABASAPPA S/O SRI. G.C.LOKESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, GOPANAL VILLAGE, MAYAKONDA HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK-577 514

¶21

SRI. G.L.MANJUNATH S/O SRI. G.C.LOKESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, GOPANAL VILLAGE, MAYAKONDA HOBLI, DAVANAGER TALUK-577 514

¶22

H.M.SAVITHRAMMA W/O SRI. H.M.VISHWANATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD, HIRETOGALERI VILLAGE, MAYAKONDA HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK-577 514.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.B.M.HALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R7

¶25

R1, R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED

¶26

V/O/D 15/9/23 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5 & R6 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT

¶27

V/O/D 23/01/2025, NOTICE TO R2 & R3 DISPENSED WITH)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.72/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE DAVANAGERE. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR COMMAND OR DIRECTION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2019 (ANNX-F) IN O.S.NO.72/2015, ON THE FIL EOF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE DAVANAGERE, AND PERMIT THIS PETITIONER TO AMEND THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AS PRAYED IN I.A.NO.12 IN O.S.72/2015 I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE DAVANAGERE.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4999 WP No. 2734 of 2020

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.XII in O.S.No.72/2015 dated 06.11.2019 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere, the petitioner/defendant No.1 is before this Court.

¶34

The respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed the suit to declare that he is the absolute owner of the property and also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing obstruction to the plaintiff in cultivating the suit schedule property in any manner and there by interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the possession of the suit schedule property as the same is prejudicial to the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. He has not conveyed his right, title and interest in the suit schedule property in favour of any other person or persons, he has not executed any registered document or documents in respect of suit schedule property after he became the owner of the suit schedule property and he has not parted with possession of the suit schedule property.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:4999 WP No. 2734 of 2020

¶37

It is stated that the defendants are acting in a manner which is prejudicial to the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 claims to have purchased the suit schedule property from 1^st defendant. In turn the defendant No.4 claims to have purchased the suit schedule property from defendant Nos.2 and 3 and defendant No.7 claims to have purchased the property from defendant Nos.4 to 7. It is stated that the 1^st defendant had no semblance of right, title and interest in the property and consequently, he could not have executed any sale deed and the others have no right to sell the property.

¶38

In the suit, initially the written statement is filed by defendant No.1. According to him, he has not executed any sale deed in favor of defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Now, by way of amendment he wants to file the written statement after the matter is set for the trial, after the cross examination of PW-3. It is the case of defendant No.1 that is he has not executed any document and he wants to further expand the said facts by filing this amendment to the written statement. I.A.No.XII is filed by defendant No.1 seeking permission to amend the written statement. That came to be to be dismissed by order

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4999 WP No. 2734 of 2020

¶40

impugned. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/defendant No.1 is before this Court.

¶41

While dismissing I.A.No.XII, the trial Court had observed that the plaintiff is seeking declaration and injunction. His case is that he has not sold the property to defendant No.1 and it is the case of defendant No.1 that he has not sold the properties to the others. The trial Court observed that the fact whether defendant No.1 has executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2, when it is already denied and by the amendment that he is seeking or the facts that he wants to place by way of amendment are not necessary to adjudicate the dispute involved in the case. Further, after the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, when an application is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC it is for the party to say that in spite of due diligence, he could not bring all these facts to the notice of the Court. All these aspects were not pleaded by the defendant and accordingly dismissed the petition.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that the amendment is very much necessary and by way of amendment, he is not introducing any new case and

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:4999 WP No. 2734 of 2020

¶45

there is no prejudice caused to the other parties. He submits that the trial Court without considering all these aspects in a hyper technical manner had dismissed the application and unless this application is allowed, it would cause lot of prejudice to defendant No.1

¶46

Notice is served on respondent Nos.1, 4 and service of notice in respect of respondent Nos.5 and 6 are held sufficient vide order dated 15.09.2023 and notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with vide order dated 23.01.2025.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7/ defendant No.7 submits that defendant No.1 who has purchased the property and who has no interest in the property has come up with this application only to drag on the proceedings. He submits that the trial Court had rightly dealt with the application and rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant seeking amendment of the written statement and no grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7/ defendant

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:4999 WP No. 2734 of 2020

¶51

No.7, perused the entire material on record. The suit is for declaration and it is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the property, he has not executed any document in favor of the defendants and they have no right or title to the property. It is the case of defendant No.1 that he has not executed any document in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and it is the case of defendant No.7 that he has purchased the property from defendant Nos.4 and 6 who has purchased from defendant Nos.2 and 3.

¶52

The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of his title to the property. The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he is the owner of the property and he has not executed any sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. However, defendant No.1 has already denied that he has executed the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. The trial Court had rightly dismissed the application on the ground that he has not pleaded why this amendment could not be sought before the commencement of the trial as mandated under the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and the second ground is that when he is pleading with regard to the denial of sale deed and that pleading is already on record and why this

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:4999 WP No. 2734 of 2020

¶55

amendment is necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties. The trial Court on both grounds has rightly observed that the amendment is not required under the facts and circumstances of the case and rightly dismissed the application. This Court finds no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶58

ii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶59

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶60

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Ramachandrappa v. H G Basavarajappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandrappa v. H G Basavarajappa

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

Priyanka Vs Ajay Sankar

Sri C J Nagaraja Vs Sri K Harish Reddy

Mrs. Veena Goverdhan Vs Mr. Mohan Jayaram

K N Ramappa @ Rama Vs B v Narayanaswamy

Shivalingamma Vs Ningamma

Sri Venkatappa Vs Sri Venkataramanappa