- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20350 WP No. 18128 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 18128 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT KADANAKUPPE VILLAGE LAKKOJANAHALLI POST KAILANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562 159 …PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYAKIRTHI M. C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAVI S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE LALAGHATTA POST, KASABA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159. 2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS 3. SRI T.P.THAMMAIAH S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20350 WP No. 18128 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4. SRI RAGHU S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT KADANAKUPPE VILLAGE LAKKOJANAHALLI POST, KAILANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562 159. 5. BALAKRISHNA S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE LALAGHATTA POST, KASABA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159. (RESPONDENT NO.5 DIED ON 14.06.2021) 5.A) SMT. CHANNAMMA WIFE OR LATE BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 5.B) SRI SAMANTHA KUMAR SON OF LATE BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS BOTH 5.A) AND B) ARE R/AT THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE LALAGHATTA POST, KASABA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20350 WP No. 18128 of 2024 6. SRI P.YELLEGOWDA S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO.8132 6TH CROSS KUVEMPU NAGAR, CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. 7. SMT. RUKMINI @ RUKMINAMMA D/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH W/O M.PECHAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE AND POST KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 159. 8. SMT. SARASWATHI @ SARASWATHAMMA D/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH W/O NARAYANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT KOMANAHALLI VILLAGE ABBUR POST,CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562 159 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SWAROOP T.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI R.S.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R4, R5(A&B), R6, R7, R8) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FORM THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT RAMANAGARA IN O.S.NO. 483 OF 2013. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20350 WP No. 18128 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – defendant No.3 is before this Court calling in question an order dated 01.12.2023, passed on interlocutory applications, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and Section 152 of the CPC, respectively, seeking permission to amend the compromise petition and the compromise decree dated 06.01.2014 and 07.01.2014, respectively, in O.S.No.483/2013, is rejected. 2. Heard Sri Jayakirthi M.C., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Swaroop T., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri R.S.Umesh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 4, 5(A & B), 6, 7 and 8. 3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows: A suit in O.S.No.483/2013 instituted by the first respondent against the petitioner was for the purpose of partition and separate possession of joint family properties. On - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20350 WP No. 18128 of 2024 06.01.2014, all the parties to the lis O.S.No.483/2013 entered into a compromise by filing a compromise petition in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC. The petitioner herein was allotted ‘D’ schedule properties. Therefore, ‘D’ schedule properties fell into the share of the petitioner. The trial Court accordingly, drew up its decree in terms of the compromise petition. On 23.09.2020, on the closure of the final decree proceedings, the petitioner got the said property registered. Pursuant to the drawing up of the final decree, 11 E sketch is prepared in respect of ‘D’ schedule properties and the lands are phoded. The ‘D’ schedule properties were thus, assigned sub-numbers. Owing to the fact that the ‘D’ scheduled property remained no longer with the same survey numbers, in the light of the phodi, the petitioner files an applications before the concerned Court under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and Section 152 of the CPC, respectively, seeking permission to amend the compromise petition and the decree made in terms of the compromise insofar it pertains to ‘D’ schedule properties, only to bring in the sub-numbers after phodi. This is rejected by the concerned Court, on the score - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20350 WP No. 18128 of 2024 that, it has become functus officio. It is therefore, the petitioner is before the Court in the subject petition. 4. The compromise petition so filed before the concerned Court indicates ‘D’ scheduled properties, that fell into the share of the petitioner. It reads as follows: "D" SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ALLOTED TO THE SHARE OF 3RD DEFENDANT i.e. VIJAY KUMAR s/o late PUTTASWAMAIAH ITEM NO: 1 Land bearing survey no: 100 measuring 1 acres 20 guntas out of 2 acres 40 guntas thereon, situated at Hosadoddi village, Kailancha Hobli, Ramnagaram Taluk and District and bounded by East by Government Lake West by property alloted to 4th defendant Raghu North by property of Yelle Gowda @ Yallappa South by property of Puttaswamaiah & Kadegowda ITEM NO:2 Land bearing survey no: 35 measuring 1 acres 35 guntas and surevy no: 36 measuring 38 guntas out of 2 acre 13 guntas all in total 2 acre 33 guntas situated Kurubahalli village, Kailancha Hobli, Ramnagaram Taluk and District and bounded by East by property to alloted to 4th defendant Raghu West by government Nala property - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20350 WP No. 18128 of 2024 North by property of Smt. Honamma South by property of Chakkere Channe Gowda ITEM NO: 3 Land bearing survey no: 123 measuring 4 acre 09 guntas out of 12 acre 34 guntas situated at Hosadoddi village, Kailancha Hobli, Ramnagaram Taluk and District and bounded by East by property alloted to 4th defendant Raghu West by property alloted to 2nd defendant T.P. Thammaiah North by Government Halla South by property alloted to 2nd defendant T.P.Thammaiah ITEM NO: 4 Land bearing survey no: 73 measuring 1 acre out of 6 acre 14 guntas situated at Kurubahalli village, Kailancha Hobli, Ramnagaram Taluk and District and bounded by East by property of Kengalaiah West by property alloted to 4th defendant Raghu North by Government Halla South by property alloted to plaintiff Ravi and 6th Defendant Yelle gowda ITEM NO: 5 All piece and parcel of the residential house bearing no: 7 khatha no: 4/2/B measuring 25 X 60 feet and 13 X 60 feet comprising of RCC building situated at Kadanakuppe village, comes under Binnikuppe gram panchayat, Kailancha Hobli, Ramnagaram Taluk and District and bounded by East by Passage West by property of Yelle Gowda @ Yellappa s/o Channegowda North by Government Road South by Government Road.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20350 WP No. 18128 of 2024 After drawing up of the final decree, the lands are phoded. After the phodi, 11 E Sketch is drawn, assigning new survey numbers. Therefore, the following emerge: “.....11 E sketch is also prepared by assigning new Sy.Numbers which are set out below in the table: Sl.No Old Sy.No. Original Extent New Sy.No. Extent village 1 100 3 A 00 G 100/1 1A 20G Hosaddoddi Kailancha Hobli 2 35 1A 35 G 35/2 1A 35 G Kurubarahalli Kailancha Hobli 3 36 2A 13G 36/2 0-38 G Kurubarahalli Kailancha Hobli 4 123 4A 09G 123/1 4A 09 G Hosaddoddi Kailancha Hobli 5 73 6A 14 G 73/1 ! A 00 G Hosaddoddi Kailancha Hobli” (Emphasis added) The ‘D’ schedule properties have now sub-numbers. The applications will merit consideration in the light of the fact that the amendment sought would not change the nature of compromise or the decree drawn in terms of the compromise petition, as what is sought is nobody else’s share; it is the share of the petitioner’s i.e., the ‘D’ schedule properties. If the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20350 WP No. 18128 of 2024 amendment is rejected, it would undoubtedly put the petitioner in jeopardy. 5. In the light of the fact that the ‘D’ schedule properties have fallen to the share of the petitioner; the assigning of sub- numbers after phodi and therefore, the amendment to the compromise petition and the compromise decree is sought by the petitioner, which is nobody else’s but the petitioner’s and also the fact that it would not change the final decree, I deem it appropriate to allow the applications so filed and permit additions / corrections to be inserted in the compromise petition and the decree on the compromise petition so drawn on 07.01.2014. 6. A modified decree be drawn in the light of the observations made in the course of the order. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3/CT:SS