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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.