Sri M R Duggappa Vs Smt Umadevi

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24783 W.P. No.6950/2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.6950/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶8

SRI. M.R. DUGGAPPA S/O LATE RAMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O MASARUR, HOSA AGRAHARA VILLAGE HAREGOLIGE POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIMOGA (D) 577432.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BIMBADHARA H.M. ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. UMADEVI W/O LATE M.R. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶13

SUBRAMANYA S/O LATE M.R. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶14

BOTH ARE R/OF MASARURU HOSA AGRAHARA VILLAGE HAREGOLIGE POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIMOGA (D) 577432.

¶15

SMT. USHA D/O LATE M.R. CHANDRAPPA W/O PARAMESHWARA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O LAKKUNDA HASSAN-573201.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:24783 W.P. No.6950/2020

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. ASHA D/O LATE M.C. CHANDRAPPA W/O SUDHIR AGED AOBUT 43 YEARS R/O HARADALU, JAIPURA POST KOPPA TALUK-577126.

¶20

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE M.R. CHANDRAPPA W/O VENUGOPAL K AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O HANDAKAL, HADIGAL POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577432.

¶21

SRI. M.R. THAMMAIAH GOWDA S/O LATE RAMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O MASARUR, HOSA AGRAHARA VILLAGE HAREGOLIGE POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIMOGA (D) 577432.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. VAISHNAVI S. DESAI, ADV., FOR R1 TO R5 SRI. RAJKUMAR S, ADV., FOR C/R6)

¶24

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 12.12.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.28 IN FDP NO.1/1998 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI VIDE ANNX-F & ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:24783 W.P. No.6950/2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This petition is filed seeking for the following relief:

¶33

"Quash the order dated 12.12.2019 passed on I.A.No.28 in FDP NO.1/1998 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Thirthahalli vide Annexure-F"

¶34

Sri.Bimbadhara H.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed O.S.No.147/1987 for partition and separate possession with regard to one of the properties, specifically stating that in respect of other properties, a partition has taken place. The said suit came to be decreed on 30.01.1991 by allocating 1/3^rd share each to the plaintiff and defendants. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment and decree in R.A.No.20/1991 which came to be dismissed. Later, RSA No.1430/1995 was filed which also came to be dismissed. It is submitted that the father of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No.1/1998. In the said proceedings, Smt.Dharmavathi, sister of the petitioner and also sister of original plaintiff filed an application for impleading and also a counter-claim which was initially rejected. After the

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:24783 W.P. No.6950/2020

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

intervention of this Court in W.P.No.4126/2008, the matter was remanded back and is pending adjudication. When things stood thus, the respondent No.6 herein, who is the original defendant in O.S.No.147/1987 filed an application seeking correction of the decree and the Trial Court, without appreciating any of the facts has allowed the correction in the impugned order. It is submitted that the respondent No.6, under the guise of correction of an arithmetical error in the decree, has sought to change the entire schedule of the decree, which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶39

Per contra, Smt.Vaishnavi S. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri.Rajkumar S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 support the order of the Trial Court and submit that the Trial Court, taking note of the error in the schedule has directed to correct the same in the decree. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as the effect of change would not alter the possession of the parties. Hence, they seek to dismiss the petition.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:24783 W.P. No.6950/2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5, respondent No.6 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides.

¶44

The father of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed a suit in O.S.No.147/1987 for the relief of partition and separate possession with regard to the suit schedule property mentioned in the plaint. A specific assertion is made in the plaint that the partition is sought only in respect of the suit schedule property and not to other properties. The said suit came to be decreed on 30.01.1991 by allocating 1/3^rd share each to the plaintiff as well as the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court was assailed by the petitioner in R.A.No.20/1991 which came to be dismissed and later in RSA No.1430/1995 which also came to be dismissed. In other words, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 30.01.1991 has attained finality with regard to the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the final decree proceedings, the respondent No.6-the original defendant No.2

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:24783 W.P. No.6950/2020

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

filed an application under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking correction of the errors in the decree. The averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application indicate that the father of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 had shown the schedule and the boundaries to the schedule incorrectly mentioned in the plaint and sought to correct the same as per the application. The Trial Court, by recording the finding that the arithmetical error can be corrected at any stage of the proceedings and in the interest of justice by exercising the power under Section 151 of the CPC, allowed the application. In my considered view, the Trial Court committed a grave error in allowing such application. The application of the respondent No.6 at Annexure-D, though is filed under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the CPC, the effect of correction sought in the application would be to seek amendment to the schedule to the plaint, which is impermissible under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC. The scope of Section 152 of the CPC is to correct the typographical or arithmetical mistakes crept in the judgment and decree and not to substitute the schedule or chakbandi to the plaint.

¶49