Smt. Bhagyamma v. Smt. Kempamma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.28007/2023 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O SRI MAREGOWDA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT KONAGHATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANKAREGOWDA M.B. ADV.,)

AND:

¶1SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶2SMT. HANUMAKKA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

BOTH ARE R/AT VARADANAHALLI VILLAGE VEERAPURA POST, KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203.

3. SRI. DEVARAJU S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:45512( W.P.(No.28007/2023( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010638662023( ( ( R/AT,DODDATUMKUR,VILLAGE, MADHURE,HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA,TALUK, BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT-561203., ,

4., SMT.,PUTTAMMA, W/O,SRI,RAMAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,57,YEARS, R/AT,SOMESHWARA,TEMPLE, OPP,TO,RURAL,POLICE,STATION, DODDABALLAPURA,TOWN, BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT-561203., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,ASWATHANARAYANAREDDY,K.M.,ADV.,,FOR,R1,&,R2, ,,,,,,SRI.,GIRISH,KUMAR,R,,ADV.,,FOR,R3, ,,,,,,SRI.,DILIP,H.D.,ADV.,,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI.,KALYAN,R,,ADV.,,FOR,R4), , , , THIS, W.P., IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, IMPUGNED,ORDER,DTD,25/09/2023,ANNEXURE-A,PASSED,ON, IA, NO., 18, UNDER, ORDER, 6, RULE, 17, R/W, SEC, 151, OF, FOR, AMENDMENT, AND, CONSEQUENTLY,, ISSUE, SUCH, NECESSARY, ORDER,TO,ALLOW,THE,IA,18,UNDER,ORDER,6,RULE,17,R/W, SEC, 151, OF, CPC, FILED, BY, THE, PETITIONER, IN, OS, NO.189/2008,PENDING,ON,THE,FILE,OF,SENIOR,CIVIL,JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA,BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT,TO,MET,THE, ENDS,OF,JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY,&,ETC., , , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, ,

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

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated

25.09.2023 passed on IA.No.18 in OS.No.189/2008 by the Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short 'the trial Court').

¶2Heard Sri.Shankaragowda M.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Aswathanarayanareddy K.M., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.Girish Kumar R., learned counsel for respondent No.3, Sri.Dilip H.D., learned counsel for Sri.Kalyani R., learned counsel for respondent No.4 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶3The suit in OS.No.189/2008 was filed by Sri.Devraju - respondent No.3 herein and the petitioner seeking the relief of partition and separate possession as well as a declaration that the sale deed dated 02.11.2007 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit schedule

comprises of four items. Respondent No.4 herein, who is defendant No.3 in the suit, is the purchaser of some of the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed their written statements. Thereafter, the parties adduced the evidence, and the matter was posted for final arguments. At that stage, the petitioner/plaintiff No.2 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating item Nos.5 to 16 as suit schedule properties. The trial Court, under the impugned order, considered the said application and rejected the same.

¶4The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that item Nos.5 to 16 are joint family properties and that plaintiff No.1, in collusion with the defendants, intended to deprive the right of the petitioner. It is submitted that, on noticing that item Nos.5 to 16 were joint family properties and had been inadvertently

left out from the suit schedule properties, sought to include them in the purview of the suit for partition. It is further submitted that allowing the amendment would not cause any prejudice to the other side.

¶5It is to be noticed that the trial Court while rejecting the application has recorded the reasons that defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, had earlier filed a suit in OS.No.501/2007 seeking partition, wherein the very same item Nos.5 to 16 were included as the properties. Later, the said suit was disposed of, pursuant to which the revenue records were mutated. The trial Court further recorded that plaintiff No.2 was very much aware that item Nos.5 to 16, which now she intends to include in the plaint are joint family properties. However, despite her knowledge of the same, she did not take any steps to include item Nos.5 to 16 as properties in OS.No.189/2008. I do not find any error in the said finding.

¶6A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking amendment indicates that the only explanation offered by the petitioner is that, due to an oversight, the said properties were not included when the suit was filed in the year 2008. Such an explanation or a cause cannot be termed as a sufficient cause nor can be termed as a due diligence as contemplated under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The affidavit does not disclose any reason as to why, despite having knowledge of the properties, the said properties were not included in the suit when the suit was filed in the year 2008.

¶7The trial Court, taking note of the fact that the application for amendment was filed at the fag end of the proceedings, when matter had already been posted for final arguments, rejected the application. I do not find any error or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court calling for interference in the present petition. Accordingly,

the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15