- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4249 WP No. 104813 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 104813 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVANNEPPA S/O BHIMAPPA BALUR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YALIVAL, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 2. SHRI. BABANNA S/O BHIMAPPA BALUR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YALIVAL, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 3. SHRI. ASHOK S/O BHIMAPPA BALUR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YALIVAL, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581 110. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BASAVARAJ S/O FAKIRAPPA PICHARI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YALIVAL, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 2. ARJUN S/O FAKIRAPPA PICHARI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YALIVAL, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 3. SMT. SHANKRAVVA W/O FAKIRAPPA PICHARI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4249 WP No. 104813 of 2018 R/O: YALIVAL, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581110. 4. GUDDAPPA S/O MALLAPPA PICHARI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YALIVAL, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 5. SHRI. NINGAPPA S/O MALLAPPA PICHARI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YALIVAL, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 6. HANAMANTAPPA S/O MALLAPPA PICHARI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YALIVAL, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 7. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O PARASAPPA MUSARI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HALE BANKAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 8. RATNAVVA W/O PARASAPPA MANDAKKI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NELLIKOPPA, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 9. MANJAVVA W/O NINGAPPA HOSALLI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KATUR, TQ: MUNDAGOD-581 349, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 10. PRAHALAD A/F SHRINIVASCHARYA PUROHIT, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BOMMANHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581 110. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.T. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4-R9; NOTICE TO R1-R3 AND R10-SERVED) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4249 WP No. 104813 of 2018 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Shivaraj S.Balloli., counsel for the petitioners has appeared in person. 2. The order dated 02.07.2018 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hangal on I.A.No.X in O.S.No.63/2017 is called in question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The short facts are these: The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and injunction on file of Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hangal in O.S.No.63/2017 alleging that they have perfected their title over the suit land by way adverse possession and consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiffs alleged that their grandfather - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4249 WP No. 104813 of 2018 namely Ningappa Pichari was in possession of the suit land sine 1952-53. 5. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.X under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint. The defendants 1 to 3 resisted the application by filing detailed objections and contended that the proposed amendment introduces a new case accordingly they prayed for the dismissal of the application. The Trial Court vide order dated:02.07.2018 allowed the application. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the captioned Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 6. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 7. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to the amendment application. The true copy of the order passed by the Trial Court is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-E. A perusal of the same would reflect that the Trial Court extenso - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4249 WP No. 104813 of 2018 referred to the material on record and the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and also taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court rightly concluded that the proposed amendment is necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The law is also well settled that when the proposed amendment is necessary for the effective adjudication of the lis between the parties, the same must be allowed. Furthermore, as of today the law has been settled by Apex Court regarding adverse possession in RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL AND OTHERS VS. MANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS reported in 2019(8) SCC 729. The order passed by the Trial Court in allowing the amendment application is just and proper. I find no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,CLK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 46