- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15436 WP No. 101678 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 101678 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ANNAPURNABAI @ TAYAKKA W/O SIDDALING DESAI, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MAMMIGATTI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580 011. 2. KAMALA D/O SIDDALING DESAI, AFTER MARRIAGE CALLED AND KNOWN BY NAME SMT. SHAILA W/O RAVI UDAKERI, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DEGOAN, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 115. 3. SHRI. ABHISHEK S/O SIDDALING DESAI, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST AND PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. MAMMIGATTI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580 011. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SIDDALING S/O KESHAVARAO DESAI, SINCE DIED ON 01-01-2017 HIS LR’S., Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.19 12:20:52 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15436 WP No. 101678 of 2021 1. MS. JAYASHREE D/O VISHNU KAREKAR, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O. KAMAKSHI COLONY, BEHIND KUMARESHWAR NAGAR, DHARWAD-580 007. 2. CHANDRASHEKHAR SHIVALINGAPPA SADUNAVAR, G.P.A. HOLDER ON BEHALF OF DECEASED DEFENDANT.1, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, SADUNAVAR ESTATE, OPPOSITE TO AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD-580 007. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.N. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISMISSAL PASSED ON I.A. NO.13 FILED U/O.6 RULE 17 R/W. SECTION 151 OF C.P.C. IN O.S. NO.363/2016 DATED 22.03.2021 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DHARWAD AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND TO ALLOW I.A. NO.13 FILED AS PER ANNEXURE-E DATED 08.02.2021 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15436 WP No. 101678 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 22.03.2021 dismissing I.A.No.XIII filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in O.S.No.363/2013 on the file of IV Additonal Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad. 2. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of defendant No.1. Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are children of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. 3. The suit is filed against defendant No.2 and defendant No.3. Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession contending that they have 3/4th share in the suit schedule property. 4. The plaintiffs thereafter filed an application 5 years after the filing of the suit to amend the plaint, wherein the plaintiffs now contend that that plaintiff No.1 purchased the property from her income derived from her parents and the property is purchased in the name of defendant No.1. In addition to that the plaintiffs also contend that they are in exclusive - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15436 WP No. 101678 of 2021 possession of the property and the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on 09.01.2002 is not binding on the plaintiffs. 5. The Trial Court has rejected the application on the premise that the application is time barred and could not have been filed after the commencement of trial when the case is posted for further evidence of the defendants. 6. The Trial Court has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Puran Ram v. Bhaguram and another1. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sangavva Kaladagi and Others v. Shantawwa Sajjanand and Another2 and Rajapura Homes Private Limited, New Delhi v. Y.R.Harish3. 8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 1 AIR 2008 SC 1960 2 2020 (4) KCCR 2626 3 2021 (1) KCCR 404 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15436 WP No. 101678 of 2021 9. This Court has gone through the application for amendment of the plaint. There are no reasons assigned for withdrawing the admission. In the application no reason is assigned for not incorporating these facts in the plaint. 10. It is not in dispute that the application is filed 5 years after the suit is filed. However that alone is not the criterion to dismiss the application. What is required is whether the amendment which the plaintiff now seeks to incorporate, takes away the admission which is made in the plaint earlier. In the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. 11. Amendment in the plaint seeks to incorporate a contention that the property is purchased from parents of plaintiff No.1. 12. It is noticed from the original plaint that the plaintiff has made the following statement in paragraph No.3: “3. Genealogy: That the genealogy of family of plaintiffs and defendants are as follows: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15436 WP No. 101678 of 2021 Plaintiff no.1 is the wife of Defendant No.1 and Plaintiff no.2 and 3 are the Daughter and son of Defendant No.1 and that the above mentioned suit property are ancestral property of the plaintiff no. 1 to 3 and Defendant No.1.” 13. From a reading of paragraph No.3, it is noticed that the plaintiffs are claiming that the property is the ancestral property of plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3, as well as that of defendant No.1. Thus, plaintiff No.1 has admitted the fact that defendant No.1 has also acquired the property from his ancestor. Though, it is true that the ancestors of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 belong to different families, it is quite possible (subject to evidence and proof) that parents of plaintiff No.1 might have contributed amount for the purchase property and the ancestors of defendant No.1 might also have contributed towards its purchase. This is a matter to be determined at trial. 14. By the proposed amendment, plaintiff No.1 is now raising a contention that the property was entirely purchased from her father's income and thereby seeks to withdraw the admission made in paragraph No.3 of the plaint referred to above, wherein it was contended that the property is also the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15436 WP No. 101678 of 2021 ancestral property of defendant No.1. The said admission in the pleading cannot be permitted to be withdrawn unless it is demonstrated that the contention was made due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake. 15. No such case is made out. 16. The evidence has already been led on the basis of the pleading, which is already there, and it is also noticed that the case is set down for defendants’ evidence. 17. Under these circumstances, the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application for amendment cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 18. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is dismissed. ii) The observations made in this order, and the observations made in the order passed by the Trial Court, are only confined to the interim - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15436 WP No. 101678 of 2021 application and same should not be considered as having expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of either of the parties. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 44