- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.200909 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BHAGWANDAS S/O LATE PANDHARINATH MALANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRI. AND BUSINESS, R/O. OSMAN GUNJ, BIDAR – 585 401. 2. SRI. SHIVARATAN S/O LATE PANDHARINATH MALANI, AGE : MAJOR, OCC: AGRI. AND BUSINESS, R/O OSMAN GUNJ, BIDAR – 585 401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. CHRISTAKUMARI W/O JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRI AND ANGANWADI TEACHER, R/O. HALLADKHERI (K), TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR – 585 401. 2. SUBHASH S/O LATE SHARNU @ SHARNAPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC : AGRI., R/O AS ABOVE. Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 3. SUREKHA W/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. VILLAGE HALADKHERI (K), TQ. BIDAR – 585 401. 4. PAVITRA D/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE HALADKHERI (K), TQ. DIST. BIDAR – 585 401. 5. CHAITRA D/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR, AGE: 36 YEARS R/O VILLAGE HALADKHERI (K), TQ: BIDAR -585 401. 6. PREMAKUMARI W/O ABHIMAN NETKAR, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O LALWADI, CHRISTAN HOUSE, BIDAR – 585 401. 7. ARUNKUMARI D/O JAIWANTH, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O CHAMMAL, TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. GULBARGA, NOW DIST: YADGIRI. – 585 201. 8. LALITHABAI W/O SHRIKANTH, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: GOVT.TEACHER, HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, R/O MUNEERWADI, RAICHUR – 586 101. 9. RATNAKUMARI W/O SAMPATH, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 R/O VILLAGE REKULGI, TQ: DIST: BIDAR – 585 401. 10. SMT. SHANTA KUMARI W/O SURESHCHANDRA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: GOVT.TEACHER, R/O S.R.G.COLONY, STATION ROAD, RAICHUR – 586 101. 11. MANIKAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA, AGE: 87 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O. JANWAD, CHRISTAINWADA, TQ: DIST: BIDAR – 585 401. 12. SHESHIKALA W/O BHASKAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O I.D.B.COLONY, HALADKHERI (K), TQ. BIDAR – 585 401. 13. ASHOK S/O MANIKAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER, R/O. CHRISTENWADA, JANWADA, TQ : DIST – 585 401. 14. CHANDRAKANT S/O MANIKAPPA, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O. CHRISTIANWADA, JANWADA TQ. BIDAR – 585 401. 15. SHAMSUNDAR S/O MANIKAPPA, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER, R/O. CHRISTIANWADA, JANWADA, TQ: BIDAR – 585 401. 16. VASANTHA W/O LATE CHRISTI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O HALLADKHERI (K), TQ: BIDAR – 585 401. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 17. SRI. UMAKANT S/O LATE GURUPADAPPA NAGMARPALLI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRI. AND SOCIAL WORKER, R/O K.H.B. LIG COLONY, BIDAR- 585 401. 18. SRI. SURYAKANT S/O LATE GURUPADAPPA NAGMARPALLI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRI. AND SOCIAL WORKER, R/O. RTA NAGAR, BDA COMPLEX, SARASWATI NIVAS, BANGALORE – 01. 19. SMT. MANGALA W/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD AND BUSINESS, R/O SHIVANAGAR NORTH, NEAR MAIN PAPNASH GATE, BIDAR - 585 401. 20. AKASH S/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD AND BUSINESS, R/O. SHIVANAGAR NORTH, NEAR MAIN PAPNASH GATE, BIDAR- 585 401. 21. SMT. LALITA W/O S.R. GONI, D/O LATE GURUPADAPPA NAGMARPALLI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KHB COLONY, BIDAR - 585 401. 22. KAVITA D/O LATE GURUPADAPPA NAGMARPALLI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KHB COLONY, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 BIDAR- 585 401. 23. SMT. BABA FIRDOUS FATHIMA W/O NASHEER FAHEEM, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NOOR KHAN TALEEM, BIDAR – 585 401. 24. BABURAO S/O MARUTHIRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BIDAR – 585 401. 25. MOHIUDDIN KHAN S/O ABDUL MAJID KHAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRI., R/O BIDAR – 585 401. 26. AHMED MOHIUDDIN S/O GULAM DASTAGRI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. H.No.2-2-85, KULSUM GALLI, BIDAR – 585 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV FOR C/R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.03.2025 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER XIV, RULE 5 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN OS NO.160/1995 PASSED BY COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BIDAR, AS ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTIALLY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri Ravi B.Patil, learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. It is reported that respondent Nos.2 to 26 are formal parties to the writ petition. A memo to that effect is also filed. 3. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.03.2025 which is passed by the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bidar in I.A.No.21 in O.S.No.160/1995 through which the application that was filed by the writ petitioners under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Ravi B.Patil submits that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.160/1995 for declaration and partition of the suit - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 subject properties with a claim that herself and the defendant Nos.2 to 7 are related by blood and they succeeded to suit schedule properties as joint owners of the Hindu joint family and that no partition was effected between them in respect of said properties. 5. Learned counsel also contends that defendant Nos.8 and 9 purchased certain extent of the suit schedule properties from defendant Nos.1 and 7. On the death of defendant No.9, the writ petitioners were brought on record as defendant Nos.10 and 11 being the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.9. Learned counsel also submits that defendant Nos.10 and 11 filed their written statement and contested the suit after framing of issues. Subsequently, they came to know that the father of the plaintiff to the suit converted to Christianity and therefore the plaintiff lost status of being Hindu. Further the plaintiff and her siblings are all Christians. That being the case, she ought not to have invoked Hindu Succession Act seeking partition of the suit - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 schedule properties. However suppressing her religion, she filed the suit. When the plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1, during the course of cross-examination, sufficient material was elicited from her mouth in respect of her religion and her status. Thereafter, the writ petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking the Court to permit them to amend their written statement. The said application was dismissed and aggrieved by that a writ petition vide W.P.No.200604/2021 was filed. Expressing a view that in the absence of pleadings also, the plea taken can be established, the writ petition was disposed off by this Court through order dated 04.04.2024. Thereafter, the writ petitioners adduced further evidence. However without an issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, the Court cannot decide the said aspect. Hence, the writ petitioners filed an application vide I.A.No.21 seeking the Court to frame additional issue. However the said - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 application stood dismissed by order dated 15.03.2025 and aggrieved by that the present writ petition is filed. 6. Learned counsel further states that without an issue being framed with regard to the maintainability of the suit, in case the case is decided, justice will not be done and therefore quashing the impugned order, the Trial Court may be directed to frame the additional issue as sought for. 7. Vehemently opposing submission thus made, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sri Manvendra Reddy contends that only to protract litigation, the writ petitioners are filing applications after applications before the Trial Court and thereafter, knocking the doors of this Court. Learned counsel states that the writ petitioners projected themselves to be the legal heirs of the purchaser of the part of suit schedule property. Thus, their rights are limited and hence they cannot take pleas beyond their capacity. Learned counsel also states that even after disposal of the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.200604/2021 by - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 which the request of the writ petitioners to quash the order of rejecting the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure was disallowed, the writ petitioners again filed I.A.No.20 seeking the same relief and the said petition stood dismissed. Learned counsel also contends that 11 issues were framed covering entire case and points in dispute. Learned counsel also states that without pleadings, issues cannot be framed and there is no pleading from the side of any of the defendants with regard to the maintainability of the suit and thus the application filed by the writ petitioners for framing of additional issue was rightly rejected and hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 8. The writ petitioners sought for framing of the following additional issue : “Whether the suit of the plaintiff in the present form claiming the relief of partition on the ground of Hindu joint family is maintainable?” - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 9. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff in the plaint raised a contention of Hindu joint family projecting that herself and defendant Nos.1 to 7 constitute a Hindu joint family and no partition was effected between them in respect of suit schedule properties and the property is being enjoyed jointly. The Trial Court on 04.12.2020 framed issues. Issue No.2 is as under :- “Whether plaintiff proves that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 ?” 10. The specific case of the plaintiff as earlier indicated is that herself and defendant Nos.1 to 7 are governed by Hindu law. The version of the writ petitioners i.e., defendant Nos.10 and 11 to the suit is that the father of plaintiff converted to Christianity and thereby the heirs lost status of being Hindus and thus, Hindu Succession Act does not apply. Their specific stand is that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 are Christians. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 11. When a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other, issues arise. Issues admittedly are of two kinds i.e., issues of fact and issues of law. So far as issues of fact are concerned, strict assertion by one party and denial by other is required. As far as issues of law are concerned, they go deep to the root of the case and thus, the burden heavily lies upon the Court to frame proper issues regarding the law applicable so that the suit can be disposed off in a fair and proper manner. Though issues are required to be framed on the first hearing of the suit, on perusal of the plaint and written statements, the legislation through Order XIV Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure granted power to the Court to amend the issues or frame additional issues which are necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties. 12. Here the matter in controversy is with regard to the applicability of Hindu Law to the relief sought for by - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 the plaintiff. In the order rendered by this Court in W.P.No.200604/2021, this Court referred to the decision that is rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and others which is reported in (1987) 2 SCC 555. In the said decision, the decision that is rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Bhagwti Prasad vs. Shri Chandramaul reported in (1966) 1 SCR 286 was referred wherein the Court observed that where the substantial matters relating to the title of both parties to the suit are touched, though indirectly or even obscurely in the issues and evidence had been led about them, then the argument that a particular matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in every case. 13. Here is a case where the writ petitioners are agitating the plea taken by the plaintiff in respect of her religion and intends to establish that Hindu Law is not applicable. Therefore, this Court is of the view that for - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 justifiable disposal of the matter, the issue No.2 is required to be recasted as under: “Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of herself and defendant No.1 to 7 falling within the ambit of Hindu Succession Law ?” 14. The issue thus restructured would not only help both parties to properly project their version and submit their respective contentions, but also helps the Court for just disposal of the matter basing on its merit and the law applicable. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed off with the following direction:- Issue No.2 in O.S.No.160/1995 is recasted as under: “Whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule properties are joint family properties of herself and defendant Nos.1 to 7 falling within the ambit of Hind Succession Law ?” 15. As it is reported by both counsels that the case is in the final stage of arguments and evidence covering all - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1876 WP No. 200909 of 2025 the aspects including the applicability of law from both sides is completed, the Court is directed to hear the arguments and dispose off the matter as expeditiously as possible as the suit is of the year 1995. Sd/- (Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36