Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 15053 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SEETHAMMA WIFE OF LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. NARAYANASWAMY SON OF NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT RAGHUPATHI AGRAHARA VILLAGE, KYALANUR POST, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563102 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.ANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RATHNAMMA Dig itally WIFE OF VENKATASHAMAPPA, signed by BS AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RAVIKUMAR AGRICULTURIST, Location:
HIGH COU RT
2. NARAYANASWAMY OF KARNATAKA SON OF VENKATASHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 3. SRINIVASA SON OF VENKATASHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 4. MANJUNATHA SON OF LATE VENKATASHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT SHIGEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIDDLGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562105
5. GOPALAPPA SON OF LATE MUNIVEERAPPA ABOUT 50 YEARS, 6. KRISHNAPPA SON OF LATE MUNIVEERAPPA ABOUT 57 YEARS, 7. VENKATESHAPPA SON OF LATE NANJAPPA ABOUT 60 YEARS, 8. NAGARAJ SON OF LATE NANJAPPA ABOUT 55 YEARS, 9. CHANDREGOWDA SON OF LATE NANJAPPA ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 9 R/AT RAGHUPATHI AGRAHARA VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563102
10. RAJAGOPALA SON OF LATE NANJAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
10(a) SMT. MALLIKA W/O MANOHAR R/AT KOLAVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
10(b) SMT. VID`YA W/O SOMASHEKAR R/AT DODDANALLALA VILLAGE AND POST, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 25.03.2024 AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO
6;
SRI. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.9;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.7 AND 8;
NOTICE SERVED ON PROPOSED RESPONDENT NO.10(a);
VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2024, RESPONDENT NO.10(b) IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 11.11.2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR REJECTING IA NO.VI FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC IN OS 244/2015 AT ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.244/2015 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar has filed this petition challenging an order dated 11.11.2020, by which, an application filed by them under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code was rejected.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.
3. The suit in O.S.No.244/2015 was filed for declaration of the plaintiffs title to an extent of 08 guntas of land in Sy.No.1/7 and for perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs claimed that the father of the plaintiff No.2 and husband of the plaintiff No.1 are the two children of Narayanappa, who was one of the three sons of Kenchappa. They claimed that Kenchappa owned 10 guntas of land which was inherited by his three sons, who partitioned it in terms of a deed dated 20.11.1972. Accordingly 'C' schedule mentioned therein fell to the share of Narayanappa. The plaintiffs claimed that the husband of the plaintiff No.1, Sri. Nanjundappa purchased three guntas from Akkayamma on 12.4.1982. Therefore, the said plaintiffs had 08 guntas of land. The plaintiffs therefore claimed that they were entitled to be declared as the owners of
08 guntas of land in the land bearing Sy.No.1/7.
4. The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds. When the suit was set down for evidence of the plaintiffs, an application was filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint to incorporate certain additional facts to establish that the land bearing Sy.No.1/7 was bifurcated into Sy.Nos.1/7A and 1/7B and that the suit property was assigned with Sy.Nos.1/7A and 1/7B. This application was rejected by the Trial Court in terms of the impugned order.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs are before this Court in this petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land bearing Sy.No.1/7 was bifurcated and reassigned Sy.Nos.1/7A and 1/7B and therefore, it was necessary to place on record the said facts so as to enable the Court to adjudicate the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the present survey numbers. He further contends that neither the cause of action of the suit, nor the nature of the suit or the reliefs sought would be altered and there is no admission which is sought to be withdrawn by the plaintiffs by incorporating the said amendment.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the suit was set down for evidence of the plaintiffs in the year 2016 and from then on, the plaintiffs have been protracting the proceedings on one or the other ground. He submits that another application was filed earlier for amendment on 27.01.2018 which was allowed on 24.09.2018.
He therefore, contended that the plaintiffs are in the habit of filing amendment applications one after the other. He submits that the plaintiffs ought to have been diligent at the time of filing the plaint. He submits that plaintiffs have not indicated when Sy.No.1/7 was bifurcated and reassigned Sy.Nos.1/7A and 1/7B and therefore, the plaintiffs are apparently attempting to protract the proceedings.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel for the defendants.
9. The suit is filed for declaration of title and for consequential relief of injunction in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.1/7.
10. The plaintiffs have now attempted to indicate that the erstwhile Sy.No.1/7 was bifurcated into Sy.Nos.1/7A and 1/7B and therefore, it is necessary to bring on record the subsequent events. The plaintiffs ought to have disclosed either in the application for amendment or in the affidavit accompanying the application for amendment, the date when Sy.No.1/7 was bifurcated into Sy.Nos.1/7A and 1/7B. They having not disclosed the said fact, the contention of the plaintiffs that these are all subsequent events has to be therefore taken with a pinch of salt.
11. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact th
