Allowed¶48

Sri. Ghana Vijayaraju v. Smt. Renukamma

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2026WP/23126/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P. No.23126/2021 (GM-CPC), NC: 2026:KHC:26012, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J., 03.06.2026). Amendment of plaint in partition suit OS.No.584/2016; deletion of suit schedule item No.3; bonafide purchasers (defendant Nos.3 and 4) under registered sale deed dated 02.02.2007 from respondent Nos.3 and 4; right to work out equitable rights in FDP proceedings and seek allotment from vendor-shareholders; pre-trial stage amendment; prejudice to defendants; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Principal Civil Judge, Davanagere; writ petition allowed, amendment application (IA.No.4) rejected.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 17.09.2021 passed on IA.No.4 in OS.No.584/2016 by the Principal Civil Judge, Davanagere set aside; IA.No.4 rejected; no order as to costs. ¶48

Sri. Ghana Vijayaraju Vs Smt. Renukamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26012 W.P. No.23126/2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.23126/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GHANA VIJAYARAJU S/O J. ANANDA RAJU AGED 53 YEARS.

¶9

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. SUMATHI .V D/O GHANA VIJAYARAJU AGED 45 YEARS.

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT DODDABATHI VILLAGE DOGGALLI ROAD, DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DIST 577006.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. BAPAT SAMPATH VINAYAKA RAO, ADV.,)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O SHIVANANDA AGED 41 YEARS.

¶16

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O PUTTAPPA AGED 39 YEARS.

¶17

BOTH ARE R/AT KUPPELUR RANEBENNUR TALUK HAVERI DIST 581115.

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26012 W.P. No.23126/2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI. A.D. REVANASIDDAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED 70 YEARS R/AT NEW CAMP, OLD BATHI ROAD DODDABATHI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TQ AND DIST.

¶21

SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O SUNIL RICHARDS AGED 77 YEARS OCC : HOUSE HOLD R/AT NEW CAMP OLD BATHI ROAD DODDABATHI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TQ AND DIST.

¶22

SRI. JAYADEVAPPA S/O MATHAD SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT ALUR VILLAGE SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DIST-577001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(R1 - RENUKAMMA - SD R2 - RATHNAMMA - SD R3 - A.D. REVANASIDDAPPA - SD R4 - SIDDAMMA - SD R5 - JAYADEVAPPA - SD)

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING ORDER DATED 17.09.2021 ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.584/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE & ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:26012 W.P. No.23126/2021

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.09.2021 passed on IA.No.4 in OS.No.584/2016 by the Principal Civil Judge, Davanagere (for short ‘the trial Court’).

¶33

Sri.Bapat Sampath Vinayaka Rao, learned

¶34

counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the petitioners have been arrayed as defendant Nos.3 and 4, who purchased an extent of 1 acre 17 guntas of land from respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 02.02.2007. It is submitted that petitioners contended that they are bonafide purchasers of the suit schedule property for valuable consideration. During the pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint and in the said amendment, plaintiffs sought to delete item

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26012 W.P. No.23126/2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

No.3 of the suit schedule property from the scope of the suit, which came to be allowed by the trial Court on the ground that the proposed amendment was sought at the pre-trial stage and no prejudice would cause to the present petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners have to work out their equitable right in FDP proceedings if the suit for partition is decreed. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶38

Despite service of notice on the respondents, they remained absent.

¶39

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶40

The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed OS.No.584/2016 seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have shown three items of property as joint family properties. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26012 W.P. No.23126/2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

application seeking amendment of the plaint by deleting item No.3 of the suit schedule properties from the purview of the suit. It is to be noticed that the petitioners herein are the purchasers of the item Nos.1 and 2 properties from respondent Nos.3 and 4 under a registered sale deed dated 02.02.2007. If the amendment as sought is permitted to be allowed, the rights of the purchasers would be affected, as the petitioners are required to work out their equitable rights in the FDP proceedings by showing that they are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration from respondent Nos.3 and 4 and they have the right to seek allotment of properties from respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the suit. However, such a right would be deprived if the proposed amendment is allowed. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the amendment by permitting the plaintiffs to delete item No.3 of the suit schedule properties from the scope of the suit. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:26012 W.P. No.23126/2021

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The writ petition is allowed . ii. The impugned order dated 17.09.2021 passed on IA.No.4 in OS.No.584/2016 by the Principal Civil Judge, Davanagere is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.4 is rejected. iii. No order as to costs.

¶49

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶50

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri. Ghana Vijayaraju v. Smt. Renukamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ghana Vijayaraju v. Smt. Renukamma

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

Mrs Hazel Felicia Peres Vs Mrs. Jacqueline Mary Alphonso Nee Peres

Smt. Lakshmidevamma Vs D.V. Nanjunda Swamy

Anjali D K Vs Mohan Patel

D Lakshmi Narayana Reddy Vs Venkatappa

Inayath Vs Nasarullasheriff

G Prasanna Vs Malashri