Allowed¶60

Smt. Munithayamma v. Smt. Muniyamma

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2026WP/7018/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru; W.P. No.7018/2020 (GM-CPC); Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil; decided 03-03-2026; amendment of plaint; Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC; partition suit O.S.No.48/2012 (Devanahalli) claiming 1/6th share; rejection of IA No.5 quashed; withdrawal of prior suit O.S.No.266/2009 by plaintiff's mother held no bar where petitioner was not party thereto; Article 227 certiorari; Special Land Acquisition Officer KIADB formal party.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 24.10.2019 on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.48/2012 set aside; I.A.No.5 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC allowed; petitioner directed to file amended plaint before the trial Court within two weeks. ¶60

Smt. Munithayamma Vs Smt. Muniyamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting I.A.No.5 (application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to amend the plaint by adding left-out joint family properties to the suit schedule) in O.S.No.48/2012.

¶42

Court's answer

The trial Court committed a grave error in rejecting the amendment application I.A.No.5.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The amendment application was filed at the initial stage of the proceedings, and the withdrawal by the petitioner's mother of her earlier suit O.S.No.266/2009 (in which these properties were scheduled) has no bearing on incorporating those properties in the present suit; accordingly I.A.No.5 deserves to be allowed.

¶57

Key takeaways

The petitioner was not a party to the earlier suit O.S.No.266/2009 filed by his mother, which supports allowing the amendment in the present suit.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari against the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.48/2012, whereby the plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to amend the plaint by adding left-out joint family properties to the suit schedule was rejected on the ground that those properties had been scheduled in O.S.No.266/2009 filed by the plaintiff's mother, which she had withdrawn. The High Court held that the trial Court committed a grave error: the amendment was sought at the initial stage of proceedings, and the withdrawal of the mother's suit had no bearing since the petitioner was not a party to that suit. Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; I.A.No.5 allowed; petitioner to file amended plaint within two weeks.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:12874 W.P. No.7018/2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.7018/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT. MAHADEVAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562157.

¶10

(BY SRI. SURESH D. DESHPANDE, ADV.,)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS R/AT. MAHADEVAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562157.

¶14

SRI. PRAKASH S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. VASANTHANAGAR NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE OFFICE HESARAGHATTA, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560090.

¶15

SRI. NATARAJ S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:12874 W.P. No.7018/2020

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. GOPAL S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶20

SMT. SARASA D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶21

RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT. MAHADEVAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562157.

¶22

SMT. RAJAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT. HOOVINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTICT-562157.

¶23

SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶24

SRI. KEMPANNA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶25

RESPONDENTS NO.7 & 8 ARE R/AT. MAHADERAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562157.

¶26

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER K.I.A.D.B. NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P.V. ADV., FOR R9 V/O/DTD:08.04.2021 NOTICE TO R1 - R6 ARE D/W R7 & R8 ARE SERVED)

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:12874 W.P. No.7018/2020

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 24.10.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI ON I.A. NO.5 IN O.S. NO.48/2012 AND ALLOW I.A.NO.5 (ANNX-E) & ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.10.2019 passed on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.48/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (for short, 'the

¶37

trial Court' ).

¶38

Sri Suresh D.Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for partition and separate possession. Later he came to know that certain properties were left out which were to be added in the schedule to the plaint. Hence, he filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate the left out properties on the ground that they are the joint family

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:12874 W.P. No.7018/2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

properties. However, the trial Court, under the impugned order, without assigning any reason rejected the application. Hence, he seeks to allow the said application by allowing this petition.

¶43

The notice issued to respondent Nos.7 and 8 were served, they remained absent.

¶44

Sri P.V.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.9 submits that respondent No.9 is a formal party to the suit. It is submitted that as some of the properties are acquired and whatever decree is passed in the suit they will abide by the said decree.

¶45

I heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.9 and perused the material available on record.

¶46

The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S.No.48/2012

¶47

praying for judgment and decree of partition and allotment of 1/6^th share in the suit schedule property. The said suit

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:12874 W.P. No.7018/2020

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

is opposed by defendant No.7 by filing detailed written statement. The petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, the said application is numbered as IA No.5 seeking to add certain properties to the schedule of the plaint on the ground that

¶52

the proposed additional properties are the joint family properties and the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the said properties. The said application was objected by defendant No.7 on the ground that, filing of said application is to drag on the matter. The trial Court, under the impugned order, rejected the application by recording the reason that the mother of the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.266/2009 and these properties were in the schedule of the said suit, and the said suit came to be withdrawn by her, hence, the said application is not maintainable.

¶53

In my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application. It is to be noticed that the application for amendment is filed at

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:12874 W.P. No.7018/2020

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the initial stage of the proceedings and withdrawal of the suit filed by the mother of the plaintiff may not have any bearing on seeking to incorporate those properties in the present suit. It is stated that the petitioner herein was not a party in the said suit. Taking note of the same, I am of the considered view that I.A.No.5 deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i. Writ petition is allowed .

¶60

ii. The impugned order dated 24.10.2019 passed on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.48/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA No.5 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is allowed.

¶61

iii. The petitioner shall file amended plaint before the trial Court in two weeks.

¶62

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶63

BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Smt. Munithayamma v. Smt. Muniyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Munithayamma v. Smt. Muniyamma

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

Sri. K. Vijaykumar Vs Smt. Nalina .S

Sri M a Madhusudana Vs Sri Krishnappa

Santhosh K Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Mr. Rajesh Alias Ranjith Vs Mr. Arjun Ram

Sri Sheik Mubarak Vs Sri Niranjan

Syed Afsar Vs Smt Saleema Begum