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

TUKKAPPA S/O LATE POCHAPPA DIED BY LRS – Appellant
Versus
YELLAPPA S/O LATE POCHAPPA AND ORS – Respondent
WP 201712/2021



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION No.201712/2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

TUKKAPPA S/O LATE POCHAPPA DIED

BY LRS

1) PENTAPPA AND ORS

S/O LATE TUKARAM,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

OCC. AGRICULTURE,

R/O. CHITTA VILLAGE,

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.

2 . JAGANNATH S/O LATE TUKARAM

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

OCC. AGRICULTURE,

R/O. CHITTA VILLAGE,

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.

3 . JAGAMMA W/O LATE ULLAS

OCC. AGRICULTURE,

R/O. CHITTA VILLAGE,

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.

4 . SANTOSH S/O LATE ULLAS

AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,

2

OCC. NILL,

R/O. CHITTA VILLAGE,

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.

5 . ABHISHEK S/O LATE ULLAS

AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,

OCC. NILL,

R/O. CHITTA VILLAGE,

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.

6 . AMBIKA D/O LATE ULLAS

AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

OCC. NILL,

R/O. CHITTA VILLAGE,

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.

7 . POOJA D/O LATE ULLAS

OCC. NILL,

R/O. CHITTA VILLAGE,

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.

D TO G ARE MINOR

U/G OF JAGAMMA W/O LATE ULLAS,

R/O. CHITTA,

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.

8 . SHESHAMMA W/O LATE TUKKAPPA

AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSE WIFE,

R/O. CHITTA VILLAGE,

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.

9 . RANGAMMA W/O BASWAARAJ

(D/O TUKKAPPA)

R/O. NAGURA,

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.

3

10 . KALAVATI W/O MANIK (D/O TUKKAPPA)

R/O. SHAHPUR,

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.

11 . ANSHAMMA W/O MANIK (D/O TUKKAPPA)

R/O. RAJOLI,

ZAHEERABAD (T.S.).

12 . LAXMI W/O KASHINATH

R/O. RATNAPUR,

ZAHEERABAD (T.S.)

13 . SANGEETA W/O RAMESH

R/O. KALLUR,

TQ. ZAHEERABAD (T.S.)

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . YELLAPPA S/O LATE POCHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

OCC. AGRICULTURE,

2 . SHESHAPPA S/O LATE POCHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

OCC. AGRICULTURE,

3 . SHANKER S/O LATE POCHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

OCC. AGRICULTURE,

4 . SARASWATHI W/O LATE MARUTHI

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

OCC. AGRICULTURE,

4

5 . RAJU S/O LATE MARUTHI

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

OCC. AGRICULTURE,

6 . RAMESH S/O LATE MARUTHI

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

OCC. AGRICULTURE,

7 . SURAJ S/O YELLAPPA

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

OCC. AGRICULTURE,

ALL ARE RESIDENT OF CHITTA,

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401.

.RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THAT A WRIT

OF CERTIORARI ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO

QUASH

THE

IMPUGNED

ORDER

DATED

23.08.2021

PASSED ON I.A.NO.XVI FILED UDNER ORDER VI RULE 17

OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.162/2016 AS

AT ANNEXURE-F PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL

SENIOR

CIVIL

JUDGE

AND

CJM

AT

BIDAR

AND

CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED

FOR.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

5

ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs

challenging the correctness of the order dated

23.08.2021 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge

and CJM, Bidar (henceforth referred as 'Trial Court') in

O.S.No.162/2016, by which the Trial Court rejected

the application filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of

the plaint.

2.

A suit in O.S.No.162/2016 was filed by the

father of the petitioners herein for declaration and

perpetual injunction in respect of 05 acres of land

bearing Sy.No. 32/A2 of Chitta village, Bidar taluka.

The father of the petitioners claimed that he was

absolute owner in possession of the said property.

This was contested by the defendants. After

conclusion of the trial in the suit, petitioners filed an

application to amend the plaint to describe how their

6

father became the owner of the property and sought

to introduce the following amendment.

A) In para no.2 at first line after the word suit

land the word "and he purchased the suit land for

consideration amount of Rs.3,000/- from its previous

vendor

through

registered

sale

deed

vide

doct.No.472/1975-76 dated 12/5/1975" is to be

added.

3.

The

application

was

resisted

by

the

defendants. The Trial Court rejected the application on

the ground that the p

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