Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 40909 (KAR)

SMT.KAMALAMMA v. SRI.NARASEGOWDA

WP/7864/2023 · 2025-10-14

S Vishwajith Shetty

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40824 WP No. 7864 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO.7864 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT.KAMALAMMA W/O LATE. S.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, NO.28/20/1, G-2, AKHATHA APARTMENTS, 10TH MAIN, GOKULA I STAGE, II PHASE, MATTIKERE, BANGALORE-560054. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRA KUMAR R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.NARASEGOWDA S/O LAKSHMANGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O NARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. SRI.KARTHIK S/O NARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40824 WP No. 7864 of 2023 RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT SOLURE VILLAGE, SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120. 4. SMT.MANJULA W/O LATE. NATARAJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 5. SMT.POOJA D/O LATE. NATARAJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 6. SMT.PRARTHANA W/O LATE. NATARAJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 7. SRI.PUNITH KUMAR S/O LATE. NATARAJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.70, NEAR MARUTHI THEATER, JDN COMPLEX, RAJAGOPAL NAGAR, BENGALURU-560058. 8. SMT.GANGAMMA W/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT SOLUR VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK-562120. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 9. SRI.HEMANTH KUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40824 WP No. 7864 of 2023 S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4, 4TH CROSS, GANAPATHI NAGAR, CHIKKABANAVARA, BENGALURU-560090. 10. MISS.GAYATHRI D/O, NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4, 4TH CROSS, GANAPATHI NAGAR, CHIKKABANAVARA, BENGALURU-560090. 11. SRI.NARASAPPA S/O LATE.RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT SOLUR VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA-562120. 12. SRI.RAJU, S/O LATE. PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT, NO.71, 7TH MAIN, KANTEERAVA STUDIO, PARIMALA NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-96. 13. SRI.KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE.LAKSHMAN GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40824 WP No. 7864 of 2023 14. SRI.SIDDARAJU S/O LATE.LAKSHMAN GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 15. SRI. NAGARAJA S/O LATE.LAKSHMAN GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.13 TO 15 ARE R/AT SOLUR VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA-562120. 16. SRI.LAKSHMIPATHAIAH S/O LATE.CHIKKANARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 17. SRI.NARSIMHEGOWDA S/O LATE.CHIKKANARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 18. SRI.NAGARAJU S/O LATE.CHIKKANARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NO.16 TO 18 ARE R/AT SOLUR VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA-562120. 19. SRI.MARIRANGAIAH S/O LATE.MUDDARANAGIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT,BUDDIHANAPALYA, H/O GORUR, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK-562120. 20. SMT.BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE.S.MUNIRAJU - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40824 WP No. 7864 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 21. SMT.NAGAMMA W/O LATE.S.MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, SL.NO.20 & 21 ARE R/AT.NO.131 BEHIND SANGAM TEXTILES, CHIKKABOMMASANDRAI, GKVK POST, BENGALURU-560065. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN, ADV. FOR SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHI S.K., ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. K.M. ESWARAPPA, ADV. FOR R11, R16 TO R18; R4 TO R7, R15, R19 TO R21 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED; V/O/D 12.01.2024 & 13.02.2025, NOTICE TO R8, R10, R12 TO R14 IS D/W AND SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R9 IS H/S) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.15.03.2023 ONE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT MAGADI, RAMANGARAM DISTRICT IN OS NO.325/2014 WHICH IS FOUND AT ANNX-A AND ALLOW THE WP AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40824 WP No. 7864 of 2023 ORAL ORDER This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff with a prayer to set aside the order dated 15.03.2023 passed on I.A.No.45 in O.S.No.325/2014 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Magadi, Ramanagara District. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 3. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.325/2014 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Magadi, Ramanagara District, seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction. 4. Prayer (b) made in the plaint reads as follows: "b) To declare that the alleged sale deed dt.22.12.2010 registered on 31.12.2010 as Doc. No. Mgd 1-1-02366/2010-11 stored in CD No.MGDD82 in Book-1, executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in collusion with other defendants in favour of 4th defendant in respect of item No.1 of the suit" 5. I.A.No.45 was filed in O.S.No.325/2014 by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40824 WP No. 7864 of 2023 1908, with a prayer to delete prayer No.(b) in the plaint and insert the proposed prayer, which reads as follows: "To declare that Sale Deed dated 22.12.2010 which is registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Magadi, as Document No.MGD-1-02366/2010-11, stored in CD No.MGDD82, executed by the Defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of Defendant No.4 in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property is a sham document and null and void and direct the concerned Sub-Registrar to make such entries." The said application was opposed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 by filing objections. 6. The trial Court by order impugned has rejected I.A.No.45 for the reason that the proposed amendment is totally unnecessary. In the proposed prayer, the amendment sought is to declare the sale deed dated 22.12.2010 as a sham document and null and void. The proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit in any manner nor the defendants will be put to any hardship and inconvenience, if the proposed amendment is allowed. The trial Court without appreciating this aspect of the matter, for the reason that the proposed amendment is unnecessary, has rejected the application, which - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40824 WP No. 7864 of 2023 in my considered view is not justified. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; (ii) The order dated 15.03.2023 passed on I.A.No.45 in O.S.No.325/2014 is set aside and the prayer made in I.A.No.45 stands allowed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28