Sri Krishnappa v. Muniyamma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 4316 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT THRUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, TUBUGERE HOBLI-561 203 DODDABALLAPUR TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VINAY KUMAR, G.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1MUNIYAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS SRI NARAYANASWAMY, S/O. LATE MUTHRAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

2. SRI RAMESH S/O. MUTHRAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

3. SMT. RATHNAMMA, D/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶4SMT. MUTHAMMA, D/O. LATE NARASAPPA,

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

W/O. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶5SMT. LAKSHAMAMMA D/O. LATE NARASAPPA W/O. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT TURVANAHALLI VILLAGE, TUBUGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, 561203

¶6SRI SHADAB PASHA, S/O. SRI ABDUL KHADER, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 69, 7TH CROSS, NEELASANDRA, BAZAAR BEEDI BANGALORE SOUTH 560 047 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI OMKARA N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI SADANANDA SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DODDABALLAPUR IN O.S.NO.137/2012 ON I.A. NO.LXII DTD.

10.10.2025 VIDE AT ANNX-D.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

¶1The present petition is filed impugning the order dated

10.10.2025 passed in O.S. No. 137/2012, whereby I.A. No. LXII, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the written statement, came to be rejected.

¶2Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner–defendant No.2 before the Trial Court submits that defendant No.3 has been impleaded as a party on the ground that he is the alleged purchaser of Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the transaction between defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 was intended to be a mortgage, but the same was allegedly registered as a sale deed by fraud and misrepresentation. In view of the specific stand taken by defendant No.3, the amendment has become necessary. It is further submitted that, if the amendment is permitted, neither the cause of action nor the nature of the suit would undergo any change. The amendment is, therefore, necessary for the comprehensive adjudication of the suit.

¶3Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the proposed amendment seeks to challenge the sale deed executed by the petitioner herein in favour of defendant No.3, which was well within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing the written statement. It is submitted that the application came to be filed after the completion of recording of evidence of all the parties. It is further submitted that, if the amendment is permitted, the cause of action and the nature of the suit would necessarily travel beyond the relief of partition and separate possession. In that view of the matter, the learned Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application.

¶4Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶5The suit is one for partition and separate possession. Defendant No.3 has been impleaded as the purchaser of Item No.2 of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. It is to be noted that the petitioner herein executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner contends that the said document was

intended to be executed as a mortgage deed. However, taking advantage of the petitioner's illiteracy, the document was registered as a sale deed.

5.1. It appears that the necessity to raise such a defence is only to ensure that, if any share is allotted to the petitioner herein, the same is not set off against the property already sold in favour of defendant No.3. If the grievance of the petitioner is that the alleged sale deed was registered by taking advantage of the petitioner's illiteracy and by fraud and misrepresentation, such grievance cannot be redressed in the present suit, which is one for partition. If such an amendment is permitted, it would introduce a new cause of action and the suit would travel beyond the relief sought for partition and separate possession. Merely because the petitioner may maintain a separate suit seeking similar relief cannot be a ground to allow the present application for amendment. The Trial Court, having rightly observed that the proposed amendment introduces a new cause of action and changes the nature of the suit, has rejected the application. Hence, this Court finds no error or infirmity in the impugned order.

¶6Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

VP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10