- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1371 WP No. 202921 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.202921 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: VIMLABAI W/O YESHWANTRAO AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRI, R/O GANGAPUR VILLAGE, MANDAL ZAHARSANGAM, TQ. ZAHIRABAD DIST. MEDAK (TELANGAN STATE) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KANTEPPA S/O NARSAPPA, AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. PENSIONER, R/O H.NO. 359, HALADKERI(K), BIDAR-585403. 2. SMT. SANGEETA W/O LATE MANMOHAN, AGE. 38 YRS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO. 359, HALADKERI(K), BIDAR-585403. 3. TRISHA D/O LATE MANMOHAN, AGE. 14 YRS, (MINOR) U/G OF NATURAL MOTHER, SMT SANGEETA W/O LATE MANMOHAN, AGE. 38 YRS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO. 359 HALADKERI (K), BIDAR-585403. Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1371 WP No. 202921 of 2022 4. GOPAL KRISHNA S/O KANTEPPA, AGE. 43 YRS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB, R/O H.NO. 359, HALADKERI(K) BIDAR-585403. 5. SMT. SAVITA W/O VIJAYAKUMAR KARPE (D/O KANTEPPA) AGE. 41 YRS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO. 359 HALADKERI (K) BIDAR-585403. 6. MAHESH S/O KANTEPPA AGE. 37 YRS, OCC. AGRI, R/O H.NO. 359 HALADKERI (K), BIDAR-585403. 7. SMT. SARITA W/O VIVEK (D/O KANTEPPA) AGE. 35 YRS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO. 359 HALADKERI (K), BIDAR-585403. 8. DIGAMBEAR S/O VAIJNATH MADIVAL, AGE. 45 YRS, OCC. REAL ESTATE, BUSINESS R/O H.NO. 9-8-430 KALIDAS NAGAR, GUMPA ROAD, BIDAR-585403. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 TO R7; R-8 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OF THE LIKE NATURE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 ON IA-25 IN OS NO 184/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BIDAR AS PER ANNEXURE- F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1371 WP No. 202921 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The plaintiff in OS No.184/2015 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bidar is before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 30.11.2021 by which the application (I.A.No.25) filed by the defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the written statement was allowed. 2. The suit in OS No.184/2015 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s share in the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff claimed that her father Manikappa had married Smt. Sangamma, but did not have any children. Thereafter, he married Smt. Iramma, from whom he had two daughters namely, plaintiff and Smt. Chandrakala. The defendant No.1 is the husband of said Chandrakala, while defendant Nos.4 to 7 are the daughters and sons of the said Chandrakala and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1371 WP No. 202921 of 2022 defendant No.1. She claimed that the land in Sy.No.45 was the joint ancestral property of the family, of which Manikappa was the Kartha. After the death of Manikappa, she, Sangamma and Iramma were cultivating the land with the help of labourers. Likewise she claimed that Sy.No.39 was also the joint family ancestral property, which was acquired by Smt. Sangamma, in terms of a grant made by the land Tribunal. She also claimed that the C schedule property was acquired by Smt. Sangamma, in terms of an order passed by the land Tribunal and that all the properties were cultivated jointly and were in possession of the plaintiff and the defendants. She claimed that during June-2015 some disputes arose between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 regarding management of the suit schedule properties and when she demanded her share, the same was denied. Thereafter, she secured the documents concerning the suit properties and then came to know about a sale deed executed by defendant No.1, in the name of his sons. Thereafter, she requested the defendants to acknowledge her share in the suit - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1371 WP No. 202921 of 2022 properties, which was however turned down and therefore, the plaintiff was advised to seek for a partition of her share in the suit schedule properties. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.1, 4 to 7, who inter-alia admitted that Manikappa had married Smt. Sangamma and that he did not have any children from the said marriage. Later, he married Smt. Iramma, from whom he had two daughters, namely the plaintiff and one Chandrakala. They admitted that Chandrakala is the wife of the defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.4 to 7 are their children. They contended that the land bearing Sy.No.45 was the self acquired property of the defendant No.1 and they denied that Manikappa was the Kartha of the joint family, comprised of Sangamma, Iramma, plaintiff and Chandrakala. They also denied that schedule A to E properties belonged to Manikappa. They contended that after the death of Manikappa, Iramma and Sangamma executed a sale deed in favour of the minor sons of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1371 WP No. 202921 of 2022 defendant No.1, namely Sri Manmohan and Sri Gopal Krishna. Therefore, they contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the land bearing Sy.No.45. They also denied that the land bearing Sy.No.39 was the joint family property and contended that the said property is in the name of defendant No.6 and that he is in adverse possession of the said property. They also denied that Sy No.46 was acquired by Sangamma and Iramma in terms of an order passed by the Land Tribunal. They claimed that the said property was purchased in terms of a sale deed dated 16.02.1994 and that the defendant No.1 had purchased suit property in terms of sale deed dated 28.05.2001. 4. (i) Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed issues and set down the case for trial. The defendants, then filled an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint to incorporate Para 2(a) to contend that land bearing Sy No.45 was the exclusive property of Sangamma and that she had purchased it in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1371 WP No. 202921 of 2022 terms of a sale deed dated 04.04.1968. It was thus sought to be contented that the mother of the plaintiff did not have any right or interest over the said property. It was also contended that the defendant No.1 had purchased the said property in terms of a sale deed dated 22.08.1986 and the name of Iramma was nominally shown in the sale deed as one of the vendors. This application was contested by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant Nos.1, 4 to 7 had filed a joint written statement specifically contending that Sangamma and Iramma had sold the land bearing Sy No.45 in terms of a sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1. However, by way of an amendment, the defendant No.1 was attempting to withdraw the admission given in the written statement and the assertions made in the sale deed about the joint ownership of Sangamma and Iramma 5. The Trial Court, after considering the contentions of both the parties, held that the application for amendment was necessary for the purpose of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1371 WP No. 202921 of 2022 considering the case on merits and consequently, allowed application in terms of the impugned order. The plaintiff is therefore before this court challenging the said order. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant No.1 had admitted that Sangamma and Iramma had executed a sale deed in favour of Sri Manmohan and Sri Gopalkrishna and therefore, the defendants cannot be allowed to resile from the statement to contend that Sangamma was the exclusive owner of the land bearing Sy No.45. He contends that, once Sangamma and Iramma had executed a sale deed in favour of Sri Manmohan and Sri Gopalkrishna, then it goes without saying that they were the lawful owners of the land bearing Sy No.45. He contends that the defendants cannot now be permitted to contend that the property belonged exclusively to Sangamma. 7. The learned counsel for the defendants contended that Sangamma had lawfully purchased property in terms of a sale deed in the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1371 WP No. 202921 of 2022 year 1968. Consequently, the land bearing Sy No.45 was her exclusive property and that she during her lifetime conveyed it to Sri Manmohan and Sri Gopalkrishna. However, the name of Iramma was shown as one of the vendors in the sale deed, though she did not have any right, title or interest. Thus, she contends that the defendants were entitled to place on record these facts which were crucial for the purpose of deciding the contention urged in the written statement. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendants. 9. The suit was filed for partition and separate position of the plaintiff’s share in the suit schedule properties. The dispute in this writ petition relates to the land bearing Sy No.45, which was described as a ‘A’ schedule property in the suit. The plaintiffs claimed that, her mother Iramma, Sangamma and her sister Smt. Chandrakala, jointly owned and possessed the said - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1371 WP No. 202921 of 2022 property and were cultivating it. She claimed that her claim for partition was turn downed by the defendants, which compelled her to seek for partition. The defendants who filed their written statement contending that ‘A’ schedule property was conveyed to two sons of defendant No.1 namely Sri Manmohan and Sri GopalKrishna and therefore, the plaintiff did not have any right, title or interest in the said property. The defendants never mentioned anywhere in the written statement that the ‘A’ Schedule property was jointly owned or possessed by Iramma. On the contrary, they claimed that both Iramma had joined in the execution of the sale deed, conveying the ‘A’ Schedule property to Sri Manmohan and Sri Gopalkrishna. Now the defendants intend to place on record the fact that Sangamma had purchased the ‘A’ Schedule property in terms of a sale deed executed in the year 1968 and therefore, that was an exclusive property. This being relevant fact, the defendants ought to have pleaded in the written statement at the earliest point in time. It is evident that the defendants did not exercise - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1371 WP No. 202921 of 2022 due diligence when they filed their written statement, but waited for issues to be framed and filed a belated application to amend the written statement. It is now well settled that the courts are entitled to allow belated applications, if the amendment sought for is necessary for the purpose of fully and finally adjudicating the dispute between the parties by placing the parties seeking amendment on terms, so as to deter such party from making repeated applications. In the case on hand, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants, the amendments sought for was necessary. However, since the defendants did not exercise due diligence in seeking for the amendment at the earliest point in time, the defendants are bound to make out the loss of time in the litigation. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application for amendment does not warrant interference. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, however the defendants are directed to pay a - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1371 WP No. 202921 of 2022 cost of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. 11. It is made clear that, if the cost is not paid, the Trial Court shall ignore the amended written statement and proceed with the written statement originally filed and dispose off the suit in accordance with law. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE NJ,THM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10 CT:SI