Allowed

Sri a M Mayanna, v. Sri M Madaiah

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2026WP/34645/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs in a partition suit petitioned against the trial court's rejection of their plaint-amendment application seeking addition of another property at the final-arguments stage. The High Court allowed the amendment with a justice-oriented approach, without relation back, leaving limitation open and permitting defendants' additional written statement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting I.A.No.40 set aside; amendment allowed from 30.08.2025 without relation back; limitation kept open; liberty to file additional written statement; suit to be disposed within si

Sri a M Mayanna, Vs Sri M Madaiah — Partition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6146 WP No. 34645 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 34645 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI A M MAYANNA, S/O M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ALSO R/AT. APS STORES, KEMPEGOWDA SCHOOL ROAD, GANGANNA BADAVANE, SANNAKI BAYALU, VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGARA, VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGARA WARD, BANGALORE-560 079.

¶10

SRI. A.M. KUMARA, S/O M. MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

NOW AT CENTRAL PRISON AT BELLARY, REP BY ITS ATTORNEY HOLDER, AND HIS ELDER BROTHER, SRI. A.M. MAYANNA, RESIDING AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLL, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428

¶13

SRI. A.M. RAVI, S/O M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLL, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:6146 WP No. 34645 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. DEVARAJ A S.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI M MADAIAH, S/O LATE MAYANNA @ KUNTEGPWDA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

¶21

SMT. SAMPATHAMMA, W/O LATE M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428

¶22

SINCE R1 DEAD HER LRS ARE PETITIONERS ALSO RESPONDENT NO.11 TO 14 NO OTHER LRS ARE LEFT TO BRING ON RECORD.

¶23

SRI. A.M. MADAIAH, S/O LATE. A.M. MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2842, 5^TH CROSS, 14^TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.

¶24

ALSO AT. ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571428

¶25

SMT. MANCHAMMA, D/O. A.M.MADAIAH, W/O. BILLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/ AT. KAAMIDODDI VILLAGE, NIDASALE DAKLE, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572130

¶26

SRI. A.M.MAYANNA, S/O. LATE. A.M. MADALAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:6146 WP No. 34645 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

R/AT. ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428

¶31

SRI. A.M. BORAIAH @ A.M. BORE GOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

¶32

SMT. GEETHA, W/O. LATE. A.M.BORAIAH @A.M.BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶33

SRI. NIKITH, S/O. LATE. A.M.BORAIAH @A.M.BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,

¶34

SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO.6 IS MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND HIS MOTHER SMT. GEETHA W/O. A.M.BORAIAH @A.M. BOREGOWDA THE DEFENDANT NO.5 HEREIN.

¶35

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT. NO. 20, MAHALAKSHMI TENT HOUSE CROSS, 8TH MAIN, GANESHA BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 096.

¶36

ALSO AT. ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428

¶37

SRI. A.M.CHIKKAPUTTAIAH @CHIKKAPUTTA, S/O. LATE. A.M.MADIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT 59/1, SUBRAMANYA NAGARA, 7^TH CROSS, PIPE LINE,BANGALORE-560003.

¶38

ALSO AT. ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBIL, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428

¶39

SRL. A.M.MAYIGAYYA, S/O. LATE. A.M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:6146 WP No. 34645 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

R/AT. RAJANNA BUILDING, VINAYAKA NAGARA, 3RD CROSS, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, VRUSHABHAVATHI NAAGAR, BANGALORE-560079.

¶44

ALSO AT.

¶45

ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ANTHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT- 571428

¶46

SRI. A.M. RAMESH, S/O LATE. A.M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 25, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PIPE LINE, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003

¶47

ALSO AT

¶48

ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428

¶49

SMT. GOWRAMMA, D/O. LATE. A.M.MADAIAH, W/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NIDSALE DAKHALE, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130

¶50

SRI MANCHAMMA W/O. LATE. KALAIAH. B.C., D/O. LATE. M. MADALAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT BYRANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HULLYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130

¶51

SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O. BETTASWAMY, D/O. LATE M. MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT PALACE HONNAMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6146 WP No. 34645 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

CHIKKAMMA @ MADHUSHREE, D/O LATE M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428

¶55

SMT. SHASHIKALA, W/O. NARAYANA, D/O. LATE. M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT BASAVALINGANA DODDI VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428

¶56

SMT. M.C.SAROJA, W/O. SRI. A.M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.2842, 8^TH 'F' CROSS, 14^TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560040.

¶57

ALSO AT

¶58

ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428

¶59

SRI. MAHESH, S/O. SRI.A.M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2842, 8^TH 'F' CROSS, 14^TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560040.

¶60

ALSO AT: ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT571428

¶61

…RESPONDENTS

¶62

(BY SRI. SOMANNA K.P..,ADV. FOR R2,R3,R4,R8, R9 &R10; SRI. H.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, ADV. FOR R11 TO R14; V/O DATED:03.12.2025 R11 TO R14 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF

¶63

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:6146 WP No. 34645 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

DECEASED R1;

¶67

V/O DATED: 03.12.2025 NOTICE TO R5,R6,R7,R15 & R16 IS D/W)

¶68

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER PRAYING TO-TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN OS NO. 3/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADDIR.QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADDUR IN OS NO. 3/2014 REJECTING THE IA NO. 40 UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENT OF PLAINT UNDER ANNX-A.

¶69

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

¶70

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶71

ORAL ORDER

¶72

This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.3/2014 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.40 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the said application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under

¶73

Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint by including additional property was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶74

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶75

A perusal of the impugned order and the material on

¶76

record will indicate that the petitioners-plaintiffs have instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged share. The said suit is contested by the respondents-defendants.

¶77

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:6146 WP No. 34645 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

At the time of stage of final arguments petitioners-plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint, which was objected to by the respondents and culminated in the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the petitioner had not exercised due diligence in not seeking amendment prior to commencement of trial. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶81

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not exercised due diligence in prosecuting the suit and hence, no indulgence can be showed in his favour. However, the fact that the suit is one for partition and valuable proprietary and possessory rights of the parties are involved that has to be adjudicated in the suit and the proposed amendment seeks to incorporate additional properties with corresponding pleadings in this regard, in the light of the principles enunciated in the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors -– AIR 2022 SC 4256 and

¶82

Dinesh Goyal @pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. 2024

¶83

INSC 726 and also the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this

¶84

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:6146 WP No. 34645 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

Court in the case of Mohammed Rafi & Another Vs. Bandenawaz & others – W.P.No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025 (Dharwad Bench), I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and permit the petitioners to amend the plaint by incorporating additional property and by issuing necessary directions and by keeping open the question of limitation to be decided by the Trial Court in terms of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar v Ayyakannu and Ors. – AIR 2002 SC 3369 and L.C. Hanumanthappa v H.B. Shivakumar – (2016) 1 SCC 332. At any rate, since the respondent defendants would be entitled to file their additional written statement to the amended plaint, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the respondent defendants if the amendment was permitted as sought for by the petitioners-plaintiffs by leaving open all contentions.

¶88

Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed to the trial Court refusing amendment has resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference of this Court in the present petition.

¶89

¶90

NC: 2026:KHC:6146 WP No. 34645 of 2025

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

In the result, I pass the following:

¶93

ORDER

¶94

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶95

(ii) The impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed on

¶96

I.A.No.40 in O.S.No.3/2014 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, is hereby set aside.

¶97

(iii) Consequently, I.A.No.40 stands allowed subject to the condition that the same shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be reckoned from the date of filing amendment application i.e., 30.08.2025.

¶98

(iv) The question of limitation is kept open to be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law.

¶99

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitionersdefendants to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including limitation.

¶100