- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22505 W.P. No.50971/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.50971/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. KAMPALAPPA S/O LATE OBAPPA REP. BY HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATORNY HOLDER OBLESH S/O KAMPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O SOLLAPURA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M. ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. PALAMMA D/O LATE OBAPPA W/O BHYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O JANAKONDI VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577501. 2. SRI. CHENCHALAPPA S/O LATE OBAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O SOLLAPURA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577501. 3. SMT. PADMAVATHI W/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O RAVI NURSING HOME Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22505 W.P. No.50971/2019 OPPOSITE HOLALKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. RAJASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R3 R1 SERVED V/O/DTD:27.09.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA IN O.S.NO.184/2014 ON I.A.NO.12 DATED 19.09.2019, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-J & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking for the following relief: "Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order in the nature of writ quashing the order passed by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Chitradurga in O.S.No.184/2014 on IA No.12 dated 19.09.2019, produced as Annexure-J." 2. Sri.Siddappa B.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the suit filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.3 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, seeking the amendment of the written statement which came to be allowed by the Trial Court without appreciating the fact - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22505 W.P. No.50971/2019 that in paragraph 4 of the written statement filed on 09.11.2015, denying the assertion of the plaint averment, the respondent No.3 has categorically admitted that the partition deed dated 03.11.2009 is valid. However, contrary to the same, now new theory is brought by way of amendment contending that the respondent No.2-defendant No.2 has executed an agreement of sale dated 05.01.1999 in favour of the husband of the respondent No.3, namely Veerabhadrappa and they have paid Rs.12,000/- and to respondent No.2 as an advance amount and agreed to pay Rs.3,000/- at the time of registration. Accordingly, on 03.11.2009, respondent No.3 believing the words of respondent No.2, signed the document under the impression that it was a sale deed. It is submitted that the proposed amendment is nothing but diagonally opposing the stand taken by the respondent No.3 which is impermissible. In the written statement, the respondent No.3 has already admitted the execution of the registered partition deed and that the same was a valid one but now, she is contending that it is a sale deed. It was always open for the respondent No.3 to initiate appropriate proceedings to challenge the said document if it was a sale deed instead of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22505 W.P. No.50971/2019 seeking an amendment. The Trial Court, without appreciating these aspects has proceeded to allow the petition only on the ground that the party could not give proper instructions to the counsel which resulted in not taking proper defense and allowed the application. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned order by allowing the petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that the earlier counsel who has filed the written statement though had briefed to him to take stand that the document dated 03.11.2009 was registered as a partition deed, however, the respondent No.3 understood the same as sale deed and signed the said instrument. The fraud played by the plaintiff as well as the respondent Nos.1 and 2, is intended to be brought in the form of amendment to the written statement and the same was considered by the Trial Court and the application came to be allowed which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22505 W.P. No.50971/2019 perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both sides. 5. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.184/2014 seeking the judgment and decree to declare that the alleged partition deed dated 03.11.2009 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff and is forged by the defendant No.3 and further prayer for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The respondent No.3 filed written statement. Paragraph 4 of the written statement reads as under: "4. The allegations made in para 5 of the plaint, that the alleged partition deed dated:3/11/2009 is created and forged the signature of the plaintiff, it is sham hence, no right or interest is transfer to the defendant no.3 on the basis of the alleged partition deed, and rest of the allegations made in the same para are all false, created concocted for the purpose of filing this false and untenable suit and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same." 6. The said written statement was filed on 09.11.2015. A perusal of the aforesaid written statement clearly indicates that the respondent No.3 at paragraphs 3 and 4 clearly denied the allegation made by the petitioner in the plaint that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22505 W.P. No.50971/2019 partition deed dated 03.11.2009 is a created and forged one. The matter was proceeded further and the trial was concluded. An application came to be filed by the respondent No.3 seeking amendment. In the proposed amendment, the respondent No.3 is seeking to contend that the defendant No.2 agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of her husband, namely Veerabhadrappa and accordingly received Rs.15,000/- and an unregistered agreement of sale was entered into on 05.01.1999 and on the same day, Rs.12,000/- was paid to the respondent No.2 as the advance amount with an agreement to pay Rs.3,000/- at the time of execution of the sale deed. Further, on 03.11.2009, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the plaintiff came to the office of Sub-Registrar, wherein the respondent No.3 signed the document believing it to be a sale deed. However, to her surprise, it was the partition deed. In other words, the respondent No.3 is taking diagonally a different stand in the proposed amendment by contending that the alleged registered partition deed dated 03.11.2009 is not the partition deed but it is the sale deed and with that understanding, she has affixed her signature in the office of the Sub-Registrar. The stand in the proposed amendment is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22505 W.P. No.50971/2019 entirely different from the stand taken in the original written statement which is impermissible that too after the trial is at the advance stage. If the respondent No.3 or her husband has any independent right under the agreement dated 05.01.1999, the same can be availed in accordance with law. 7. In my considered view, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application without appreciating the consequences of the proposed amendment sought. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 19.09.2019 passed on I.A.No.12 in O.S.No.184/2014 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.12 is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31