- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4108 WP No. 104213 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 104213 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHIVARADDI S/O SOMAPPA NAGANUR, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAMBHAPUR-582 111, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.S.BETURMATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TAMMAPPA S/O BASAPPA KURAHATTI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S, SMT. SUNDRAVVA W/O AHSOKREDDI DONI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAMBHAPUR-582 111, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG. 2. SMT. SAVITREVVA W/O. SOMAPPA NAGANUR, AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAMBHAPUR-582 111, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG. 3. SMT. SUVARNA W/O. GIRISHREDDI JALARADDI, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DUNDUR-582 111, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4108 WP No. 104213 of 2021 4. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. SHIDHREDDI CHALKI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BOLUR-583 238, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL. 5. VIMALA D/O. SOMAPPA NAGANUR, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SAMBHAPUR-582 111, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG. 6. BASAVARADDI S/O. TAMMANNA KURAHATTI, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAMBHAPUR-582 111, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG. 7. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. HANAMATAPPA PUJARI, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MAREWAD TIMMAPUR, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-581 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.G.KADADAKATTI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2, R5 & R7-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R3, 4, & 6-DISPENSED WITH) 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: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4108 WP No. 104213 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Sri.S.S.Beturmath, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.G.Kadadakatti, counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person. 2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on 20.12.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondents 2, 5 and, 7 are served and unrepresented. Respondents 2, 5 and 7 have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ to quash the order dated 01.09.2021 passed by Court of I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC-1, Gadag on I.A.No.21 in O.S.No.109/2021 vide Annexure-G; consequently, dismiss the application (I.A. No.21) filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC vide Annexure-E. 4. The short facts are these. The original plaintiff was one Mr.Tammappa. He filed a suit on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC-I, Gadag in O.S. No.109/2011 seeking certain reliefs. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4108 WP No. 104213 of 2021 After the service of summons, the defendants filed their written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff – Tammappa died and his legal representative came on record and filed an application in I.A. No.21 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. The statement of objections was filed by the defendants to the application. The Trial Court vide order dated 01.09.2021 allowed the application. It is this order that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel Sri.S.S.Beturmath, in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the Trial Court has erred in allowing the application. He argued by saying that Tammappa was not the owner of the suit property. Hence, he had no power to execute the Will. On the other grounds, he prayed for the dismissal of the application and submitted that the Writ Petition may be allowed. Counsel Sri.S.G.Kadadakatti, justified the order passed by the Trial Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4108 WP No. 104213 of 2021 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 an amendment application that has been filed by the plaintiff. As already noted above, the original plaintiff Mr.Tammappa died during the pendency of the suit. The legal representative of the deceased Mr.Tammappa contended that Mr.Tammappa had executed a Will in her favor on 22.03.2013. Hence, she was constrained to move an application seeking certain amendments to the plant. The defendants contended that Mr.Tammappa was not the absolute owner of the property hence, he had no right to execute the Will. In this Court also, they have to adhere to the said contention. I decline to accept the said contention. If at all the defendants have any objections regarding the validity of the Will, they are at liberty to raise the said contentions before the Trial Court. The Trial Court extenso referred to the material on record and justified in allowing the application. I find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4108 WP No. 104213 of 2021 The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be rejected. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Because of the rejection of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and the interim order if any granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP/RH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53