Disposed¶60

Sri. B. N. Munivenkatappa v. Sri. B. N. Muniraju

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2025WP/7278/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of written statement; Order VI Rule 17 CPC; counter claim added after six years; partition suit O.S. No.2209/2006 Devanahalli; deletion of schedule items at plaintiff's instance; partial partition not permissible; joint family property; plea of ouster and limitation; Article 227 writ; cost of Rs.500/-; issues framed and evidence in progress; objections to counter claim left open for trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without interference with the impugned order; petitioners left at liberty to raise objections to defendant No.9's counter claim during trial, to be considered in accordance with law. ¶60

Sri. B. N. Munivenkatappa Vs Sri. B. N. Muniraju — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court erred in allowing the amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, permitting defendant No.9 to seek a counter claim after a lapse of six years from filing of the written statement and mid-trial, such as to warrant interference under Article 227.

¶58

Court's answer

It is settled position of law that a suit for partial partition is not permissible if the parties establish that the properties are joint family property and they have a pre-existing right/share therein; they are entitled to their share subject to plea of ouster and limitation, if any. Applied to hold that defendant No.9's counter claim to items deleted by the plaintiff (plus one additional item) raised no irregularity in the partition suit.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

No irregularity or illegality was found in the trial Court's impugned order allowing defendant No.9's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; hence no interference was warranted.

¶58

Key takeaways

The petitioners are at liberty to raise such objections/issues as may be available under law with regard to the counter claim made by defendant No.9 during the trial, and the same shall be considered in accordance with law.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M.G.S. Kamal, J.), disposing a writ petition under Article 227 filed by defendant Nos.10 and 11 in O.S. No.2209/2006 (partition suit, Senior Civil Judge/JMFC, Devanahalli) challenging the order dated 19.11.2021 (recorded in the body as 19.11.2014) allowing defendant No.9's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement and add a counter claim in respect of item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit schedule — Sy.No.24 (4 acres, Papanahalli Village) and Sy.No.259/P27 (30 guntas, Bettahalasoor Village), earlier deleted at the plaintiff's instance — together with Sy.No.291/4, on payment of Rs.500 cost. Held: no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference; noting the settled position that a suit for partial partition of joint family properties is not permissible where parties establish a pre-existing right/share, subject to plea of ouster and limitation; petitioners left free to raise all available objections to the counter claim during trial.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7278 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. B. N. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE BAJANTHRI NALLAPPA

¶10

SMT. M RAJAMMA W/O SRI B N MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶11

R/AT BETTAHALASUR VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BENGLAUUR - 560 063

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. Y. NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. B. N. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE BAJANTHRI NALLAPPA

¶17

SMT. SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS D/O LATE PILLAPPA

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE PILLAPPA

¶22

SRI GOVINDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE PILLAPPA

¶23

SMT. RADHAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O LATE B N VENKATESHAPPA

¶24

SRI B V MOHAN KUMAR @ PRUTHMI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE B N VENKATESHAPPA

¶25

SMT. SUSHEELA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS D/O LATE B N VENAKTESHAPPA

¶26

DRIVER MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS S/O LATE BAJANTHRI NALLAPPA

¶27

SMT. AMMAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE BAJANTHRI NALLAPPA

¶28

ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT BETTAHALASUR VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU - 560 063.

¶29

SRI M SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

SMT. PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O JAYARAMAIAH RESPONDENTS 10 AND 11 ARE R/AT MYLANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI BENGLURU NORTH TALUK - 560 053.

¶33

SRI N VENKATESHA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT DODDABETTAHALLI BADAVANE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 053.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. KRISHNA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H. JAYAKARA SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R9; V/O DATED 12.02.2025 NOTICE TO R2, TO R8, R10 TO R12 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶36

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2021 MADE ON IA FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN OS NO.2209/2006 ON FILE OF THE HONOURABLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANHALLI, ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶37

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

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

This petition is by defendant Nos.10 and 11, in O.S. No.2209/2006, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2021 passed therein, by which the application filed by defendant No.9 who is respondent No.9 in this petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC came to be allowed.

¶43

The above suit is filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein, for relief of partition and separate possession of several items of the suit schedule properties. It appears the plaintiff had sought deletion of item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit schedule properties being land bearing Sy.No.24 measuring 4 acres situated at Papanahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and land bearing Sy.No.259/P27, measuring 30 guntas, situated at Bettahalasoor Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk respectively.

¶44

Subsequently, defendant No.9 filed application under Order VI Rule 17 on 21.07.2015, seeking relief in respect of aforesaid land bearing Sy.No.24 and

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Sy.No.259/P27, as well as another land in Sy.No.291/4. Objections were filed to the said application by defendants Nos.1 to 3, 10 and 11 primarily contending that defendant No.9 having filed the written statement had not made any claim in respect of the said items of the properties. That even when the plaintiff sought for deletion of item Nos.1 and 4 from the suit schedule property, there was no opposition from the defendant No.9, as such the defendant No.9 is precluded from seeking any counter claim under the circumstances. Besides, the relief of counter claim was also barred by limitation.

¶48

The trial Court on appreciation of the contentions of the parties by the impugned order dated 19.11.2014 allowed the application filed by the defendant No.9 on payment of cost of Rs.500/-, aggrieved by the same defendant Nos.10 and 11 are before this Court.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of the petition vehemently submits that the trial Court erred in allowing the amendments to the written statement permitting

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the defendant No.9 to seek counter claim after lapse of six years from the date of filing of the written statement. He submits issues have been framed, recording of evidence is in progress. That only to protract the proceedings defendant No.9 has sought for amendment which could not have been allowed. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶53

6. Heard perused the records.

¶54

Suit is one for partition. Item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit schedule properties were originally part of the suit, which were deleted at the instance of the plaintiff. Subsequently, defendant No.9 has sought counter claim in respect of the aforesaid two deleted items of the suit properties, in addition, another item of property has been included. It is settled position of law that a suit for partial partition is not permissible, if the parties are able to establish that the properties subject matter of the suit being the joint family property and that they having pre-existing right/share therein, they are entitled for the share subject to plea of ouster and limitation, if any.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

There is no dispute in the instant case that the

¶58

parties are related to each other. In that view of the matter this Court do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, warranting interference.

¶59

However, it is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to raise such objections/issues as may be available under law with regard to the counter claim being made by the defendant No.9 during the trial and the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶60

With the above observations, petition is disposed

¶61

of .

¶62

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶63

¶64

List No.: 38 Sl No.: 13

Sri. B. N. Munivenkatappa v. Sri. B. N. Muniraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B. N. Munivenkatappa v. Sri. B. N. Muniraju

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

Smt. Lakshmi Devi Goenka, Vs Sri N Bhaskar

Sri. Chandra Naika Vs Smt. Jayamma

Sri M R Deepak Vs K S Raghuram

Sri K Sutheethachar Katti Vs Sri Suresh S Bijapur

Mrs Lissi Mini Vs Mr M Chandran

S Sudesh Vs Syed Babajan