SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 12751

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

WRIT PETITION No.25732/2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA

S/O LATE NARASIMHA BHOVI

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

R/AT PANDITHPURA VILLAGE

KUNDANA HOBLI

DEVANAHALLI TALUK

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.

..PETITIONER

(BY SRI ANAND BEERANNANARAR, ADV.)

AND:

SMT. ANJINAMMA

W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA

D/O LATE NARASIMHA BHOVI

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

R/AT 459, 4TH CROSS

4TH MAIN, ATTUR LAYOUT

YELAHANKA

BENGALURU-560 064.

….RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. NAGARATHNA S.K., ADV.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

ORDER DATED 17.11.2022 IN OS.NO.82/2015, ON THE FILE

2

OF

III

ADDL.

SENIOR

CIVIL

JUDGE

AND

JMFC

AT

DEVANAHALLI, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED

ON

01/08/2023

COMING

ON

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

The petitioner/defendant is before this Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the

order dated 17.11.2022 on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.82/2015

on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge &

JMFC, Devanahalli (for short, ‘Trial Court’) rejecting

application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend

the written statement.

2.

Heard

the

learned

counsel

Sri.Anand

Beerannanavar for petitioner and learned counsel

Sri.Nagarathna.S.K., for respondent. Perused the writ

petition papers.

3.

The

respondent/plaintiff

filed

suit

in

O.S.No.82/2015 on the file of the III Additional Senior

3

Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli praying for a

judgment and decree to declare that the plaintiff is

entitled for ½ share in the suit schedule properties and

consequently direct the defendant to put the plaintiff in

separate possession of her ½ share in the suit schedule

properties. Since the petitioner/defendant failed to

appear, the suit was decreed. The said exparte decree

was taken up in RFA.No.1206/2017 before this Court.

This Court by judgment dated 27.09.2018 allowed the

appeal and remanded the matter back to the Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli for fresh disposal, after

providing an opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to

file his written statement. The petitioner/defendant is

said to have filed written statement on 22.10.2018 after

the remand. After filing of the written statement, issues

were framed and the suit was at the stage of cross-

examination of PW1. The petitioner/defendant filed

I.A.No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the

4

written statement by deleting the contention that “the

suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of

his father Narasimha Bhovi” and to replace it by “item

No.2 of the suit schedule property is the self acquired

property of the defendant and the same is gifted by its

erstwhile owner Sri.Ganga Bhovi and the same is

transferred in the name of the defendant in the year

1993-94”. The said amendment application was opposed

by

the

respondent/plaintiff

by

filing

objections

contending that no valid reason is assigned to permit

the

amendment

and

further

contended

that

the

amendment

sought

to

written

statement

wholly

contradicts

the

earlier

stand.

Therefore,

the

respondent/plaintiff prayed to dismiss the application.

Under impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed

I.A.No.2 of the petitioner/defendant to amend the

written statement. Hence, the petitioner/defendant is

before this Court.

5

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the defendant filed written statement on

24.10.2018 and while filing the said written statement,

by mistake at paragraph 9, it was submitted that suit

schedule properties are ancestral properties of his father

Narasimha Bhovi. But, he submits that the same is self

acquired property of the defendant, acquired through

gift deed. Further, he submits that on the basis of the

gift deed, by MR.No.IHR 63/1993-94, name of the

defendant was entered in the revenue records. Learned

counsel would invite attention of this Court to appeal

memorandum in RFA.No.1206/2017 at paragraph 4 and

submits that the petitioner/defendant had averred that

the schedule property exclusively belongs to petitioner’s

grandmother and during her lifetime, the properties

were transferred in the name of the appellant i.e.,

petitioner. Thus, he submits that as the amendment is

to correct the mistake in tune with the averment made

6

in the appeal and he submits that the Trial Court failed

to appreciate that the amendment would not cause any

prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff. On the other hand

it is for the defendant to prove his contention.

5.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

Smt.Nagarathna.S.K., for respondent submits that the

petitioner/defendant

has

filed

written

statement

specifically contending that suit schedule properties are

ancestral properties of his father Narasimha Bhovi and

by way of amendment, he seeks to delete the admission

and he is making out a fresh an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top