Mahesha v. Smt. Honnamma

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2026WP/17084/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint — Order VI Rule 17 CPC — belated amendment application after commencement of trial — partition and separate possession suit O.S.No.419/2015 — self-acquired property vs. acquisition out of joint family funds — registered sale deeds dated 20.05.1983 and 04.11.1995 — no prejudice, no change in nature of suit — cost enhanced to Rs.5,000/- — I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru — W.P. No.17084/2023 (GM-CPC) — Articles 226/227 — High Court of Karnataka, decided 05-06-2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; respondent No.1-plaintiff directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the defendants by the next date of hearing before the trial Court; trial Court directed to consider early disposal of the suit. ¶ORDER-(i)

Mahesha Vs Smt. Honnamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶ORDER-(i)

Issue for consideration

Whether the order on I.A.No.10 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC allowing the respondent No.1-plaintiff's belated amendment of the plaint in O.S.No.419/2015 was rightly passed and whether it warranted quashing in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227.

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

The proposed amendment (insertion of additional paragraph No.3(a) in the plaint) is nothing but a reiteration of the averments made in the written statement; the only addition the plaintiff intends is the plea that the two suit properties were acquired by the father of defendant Nos.2 to 7 out of joint family funds.

¶6

Key takeaways

The plea that the properties were acquired out of joint family funds, though pleaded in the plaint, is required to be proved during the course of trial; allowing the amendment causes no prejudice to the other side and does not change the nature of the suit; hence the trial Court rightly allowed the application by assigning proper reasons.ratio¶6
Although the amendment application was belated — the written statement having been filed in 2015 and the amendment sought in 2023 — considering the delay and the difficulty caused to the defendants, the application is required to be allowed on terms by enhancing the cost imposed by the trial Court to Rs.5,000/-.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) — High Court of Karnataka (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.) — dismissed. The petition challenged the trial Court's order on I.A.No.10 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC allowing the plaintiff's amendment of the plaint in partition suit O.S.No.419/2015, filed eight years after the 2015 written statement and after commencement of trial. Holding: the proposed additional paragraph No.3(a) merely reiterates the written-statement averments; its only addition is the plea that Item Nos.2 and 4 (purchased by registered sale deeds dated 20.05.1983 and 04.11.1995) were acquired by the defendants' father out of joint family funds — a plea which, even if pleaded in the plaint, must be proved at trial; granting the amendment causes no prejudice and does not change the nature of the suit, so the trial Court rightly allowed it. The belatedness (written statement 2015; amendment 2023) was addressed by allowing the amendment on terms, with cost enhanced to Rs.5,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendants by the next date of hearing; trial Court to consider early disposal of the suit.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26852 W.P. No.17084/2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.17084/2023 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MAHESHA S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/A BANDIPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570025.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A.V. ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. HONNAMMA W/O RAMEGOWDA D/O LATE NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A GOWDAHALLI VILLAGE K. SHETTIHALLI HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

¶14

SMT. SHAKUNTHALA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A BANDIPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570025.

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26852 W.P. No.17084/2023

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SMT. SHILPA D/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A HADAJANA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570025.

¶18

SMT. SHEELAVATHI W/O PRAKASH D/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A BANDIPALYA VILLAGE MYSORE TALUK

¶19

MYSORE DISTRICT-570025.

¶20

SMT. MOHAN KUMARI W/O KUMARA D/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A 2757, RAILWAY GATE ROAD K G KOPPA, MYSORE MYSORE DISTRICT-570025.

¶21

SMT. KOMALA W/O RAVIKUMAR D/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A BANDIPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570025.

¶22

NAGESHA S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/A BANDIPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570025.

¶23

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O PUTTEGOWDA D/O NINGEGOWDA

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26852 W.P. No.17084/2023

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O HADAJANA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570025.

¶27

9. VIJAYA

¶28

D/O SMT. THAYAMMA W/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A HUNAGANAHALLI HUNDI VILLAGE T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570025.

¶29

10. SATHISHA

¶30

S/O THAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O CHIKKEGOWDANA HUNDI VILLAGE MYSORE DISTRICT-570025.

¶31

DINESHA S/O THAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O CHIKKEGOWDANA HUNDI VILLAGE MYSORE DISTRICT-570025.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. K.N. NITHISH, ADV., FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV., FOR R1 V/O DTD:17.08.2023, NOTICE TO R2 TO R11 ARE D/W)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA.NO.10 U/O 6 RULE 17 OF CPC, PASSED IN OS.NO.419/2015 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSORE (ANNX-E) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:26852 W.P. No.17084/2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

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

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

This writ petition is filed challenging the order on I.A.No.10 in O.S.No.419/2015 passed by the I Additional

¶42

Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mysuru, (for short, ‘the trial Court’ ).

¶43

Sri.Sampath Kumar A.V., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is defendant No.6 in the suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff for partition and separate possession and the defendants have filed a detailed written statement in the year 2015 denying the assertion made in the plaint and specifically pointing out that the father of the defendants has purchased the property under the registered sale deeds dated 20.05.1983 and 04.11.1995. However, after the lapse of eight (08) years, an application for amendment is sought, which came to be allowed by the trial Court. It is further submitted that when the defendants adduced the evidence and produced the sale deeds, this application for

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26852 W.P. No.17084/2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

amendment is filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff without any due diligence and the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the properties referred in the application are self-acquired properties of the father of the defendants. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶47

Per contra, Sri.K.N.Nithish, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the defendants in the written statement though mentioned the sale deed, however in the evidence of the plaintiff it was denied and only when the defendants actually produced the sale deeds during their evidence, they came to know that the father of the defendants - Shivanna has purchased two properties out of the funds of the joint family, which compelled the plaintiff to file an application. It is further submitted that the present application is in the nature of bringing certain facts on record and there is neither any

¶48

change in the prayer nor does it cause any prejudice to the other side. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:26852 W.P. No.17084/2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

I have heard the arguments on both sides and

¶53

perused the material available on record.

¶54

The respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.419/2015 for the relief of partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the petitioner has filed a detailed written statement. Paragraph No.12 of the written statement clearly indicates that father of the defendant Nos. 2 to 7 has purchased Item No.2 property through the registered sale deed dated 20.05.1983 and Item No.4 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 04.11.1995 and they are the self-acquired properties of late N.Shivanna, the father of the defendant Nos.2 to 7. The contention of the petitioner is that despite knowing the said fact, the respondent No.1-plaintiff choose to file the application belatedly after commencement of the trial, which is impermissible.

¶55

It is to be noticed that the proposed amendment sought is for inclusion of additional paragraph

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:26852 W.P. No.17084/2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

No.3(a) in the plaint. The perusal of the said proposed amendment indicates that it is nothing but reiteration of the averments made in the written statement, the only addition what the plaintiff intend to make is that these two properties were acquired by the father of defendant Nos.2 to 7 is out of the joint family funds. In my considered view, such a contention of the respondent No.1-plaintiff, though it is pleaded in the plaint, is required to be proved during the course of trial and by allowing the said amendment, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, nor it changes the nature of the suit. Hence, considering the said aspect, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application by assigning proper reasons. It is to be noticed that the application is filed belatedly, as the written statement is filed in the year 2015 and the proposed amendment is filed in the year 2023, considering the said delay and taking note of the difficulty caused to the defendants, the application is required to be allowed

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:26852 W.P. No.17084/2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

on terms by enhancing the cost imposed by the trial Court

¶63

to Rs.5,000/-. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65