- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100035 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: RAVI S/O. GOVINDRADDI BUDIHAL, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND ADVOCATE, RESIDENT OF SHISHWINHALLI, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-581209. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. TIRAKREDDY S/O. YALLAREDDY BUDHIHAL, SINCE DECEASED HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ALREADY ON RECORD AS PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 2. SMT. KASTURIBAI W/O. TIRAKAREDDY BUDIHAL, SINCE DECEASED HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ALREADY ON RECORD AS PETITIONER NO.3. 3. SMT. SHASHIKALA @ YALLAMMA W/O. ASHOK PATIL, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. ASHOK A. PATIL, HOUSE OF ASHOK A. MATHAD, WARD NO.5, ANANDNAGAR, MUDHOL, DISTRICT: BAGALAKOT- 587313. 4. SMT. YAMUNAVVA W/O. GOVINDRADDI BUDHIHAL, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENT OF SHISHWINHALLI, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-581209. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 5. RITIKA D/O. TIMMARADDI INAMATI, AGE: MAJOR, OCCUPATION: STUDENT, RESIDENT OF SHISHWINHALLI, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DISTRICT: DHARWAD- 581209. 6. SILPA D/O. TIMMARADDI INAMATI, AGE: MAJOR, OCCUPATION: STUDENT, RESIDENT OF SHISHWINHALLI, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DISTRICT: DHARWAD- 581209. 7. SMT. SUMANGALA @ SUMA W/O. KRISHNARADDI CHAPPARADAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENT OF NEGALUR, TQ & DIST: HAVERI- 581213. 8. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. HANAMRADDI GANGARADDI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENT OF YARGATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DISTRICT: BELGAUM-591129. 9. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O. GOVINDRADDI BUDIHAL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF SHISHWINHALLI, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DISTRICT: DHARWAD- 581209. 10. SMT. PADMAVATI W/O. HANAMANTGOUDA JEEWANGOUDAR, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENT OF MAIDUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI – 581115. SINCE DECEASED HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.11 TO 15. 11. HANAMANTGOUDA S/O. GOVINDAGOUDA JEEWANGOUDAR AGE: 81 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAIDUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI – 581115. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 12. RAJASHEKHAR GOUDA S/O. HANAMANTGOUDA JEEWANGOUDAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF MAIDUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI – 581115. 13. RAGUGOUDA S/O. HANAMANTGOUDA JEEWANGOUDAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF MAIDUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI – 581115. 14. SMT. GEETA W/O. LAXMARADDI SAWKAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, C/O. LAXMARADDI VENKARADDI SAWKAR, MANJUNATH NAGAR, OPP- N.V.HOTEL, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI – 581115. 15. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. RAVI BUDIHAL, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, C/O. RAVI GOVINDRADDI BUDIHAL, R/O. SHISHUVINHALLI, TQ: ANNIGERI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD. 581209. 16. SUNIT S/O. HANAMARADDI KIRESUR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT KNOWN, R/O. SHISHUVINHALLI, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-581209. 17. PRADEEP S/O. HANAMARADDI KIRESUR, AGE: MAJOR, OCCUPATION: STUDENT, RESIDENT OF SHISHUVINHALLI, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DISTRICT: DHARWAD- 581209. 18. THE CHAIRMAN OF VPC (GRAMA PANCHAYAT) SHISHUVINAHALLI, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DISTRICT: DHARWAD- 581209. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; R4-R18 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25-09- 2024, DISMISSING WITH COST OF RS.1,000/- ON I.A. NO.31 ON APPLICATION FILED BY DEFENDANT NO.2/ PETITIONER HEREIN, UNDER SECTION 151 OF C.P.C. IN FDP NO. 17/2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-A; TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27-11-2024 ON I.A. NO.32 DISMISSING WITH COST APPLICATION FILED FOR REVIEWING ORDER DATED 25- 09-2024, FILED UNDER ORDER 47 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, IN FDP NO.17/2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-B; TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER ON I.A. NO.33 DATED 27- 11-2024 DISMISS APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF FINAL DECREE PETITION, FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC. BY PLAINTIFF NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) To issue writ or order or directions setting aside the order dated 25-09-2024, dismissing with cost of Rs.1,000/- on I.A. NO.31 on application filed by Defendant No.2/ Petitioner herein, under Section 151 of C.P.C. in FDP No.17/2013, vide ANNEXURE-A; b) To issue writ or order or directions setting aside the order dated 27-11-2024 on I.A. No.32 dismissing with cost application filed for reviewing order dated 25-09-2024, filed under Order 47 r/w Sec.151 of CPC, in FDP No.17/2013, vide ANNEXURE-B; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 c) To issue writ or order or directions setting aside the order on I.A. No.33 dated 27-11- 2024 dismiss application for amendment of Final Decree Petition, filed under section 151 of CPC. by Plaintiff No.3 vide ANNEXURE-C to the writ petition . 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by; 2.1. The dismissal of I.A.No.31 filed by the petitioner in FDP No.17/2013, vide order dated 25.9.2024. The said application under Section 151 of CPC was filed for dropping of the final decree proceedings in view of the judgment and decree passed in RFA No.4034/2013 and other connected matters; 2.2. Order dated 27.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.32 filed under Order XLVII read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reconsideration of the order passed on I.A.No.31 dated 25.09.2024; 2.3. Order dated 27.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.33 allowing the application under Order VI Rule - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, permitting the petitioner in the final decree proceedings to amend the FDP. 3. The facts in brief are as under; 3.1. The plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S. No.197/2001 for partition and separate possession, which was decreed on 13.11.2012, granting 1/3rd share of immovable property by way of partition and separate possession by metes and bounds. 3.2. The said judgment and decree was challenged in RFA No.4023/2013, RFA No. 4160/2013, and RFA No.10069/2014. The plaintiff had also filed cross-objections in RFA CROB No. 100003/2016, all of which came to be disposed of vide order dated 08-12-2022, wherein the decree was modified. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 3.3. After the modification of the decree and disposal of the aforesaid RFAs, the petitioner, who was Defendant No.2, had filed I.A.No.31 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the FDP proceedings, for dropping of the final decree proceedings in view of the judgment passed in the aforesaid matters by the Division Bench of this Court. 3.4. Since the said application was dismissed, I.A.No.32 was filed for the review of the said order, on the ground that the mandate of the judgment in the RFAs will have to be followed by the Final Decree Court. 3.5. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.33 under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the final decree petition by introducing certain properties. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 3.6. The petitioner contends that those properties have been excluded by way of the judgment in the RFAs and could not have been included. As such, it is contended that the final decree proceedings are required to be dropped and the amendment order passed is required to be set aside. 4. Shri D. L. Ladkhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Final Decree Court is bound by the judgment passed in the RFAs. It was for the Final Decree Court to consider the judgment in appeal rather than implement the judgment passed by the Trial Court. If that were to be considered, then the final decree proceedings were required to be dropped, there being nothing more to be done in the final decree proceedings. 5. Sri. N. P. Vivekmehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/petitioner in the final decree proceedings would however contend that the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 properties which are sought to be added to the final decree proceedings by way of an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is in furtherance of the judgment passed in RFA No.4034/2013 and it is those properties which have been added to the final decree proceedings in terms of annexures to the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The fact that those properties are to be divided among the parties would indicate that the final decree proceedings would have to be continued and as such, I.A.Nos.31 and 32 have been rightly dismissed and I.A.No.33 for amendment has rightly been allowed by the Trial Court. 6. Heard Sri. D. L. Ladkhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. N. P. Vivekmehta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Perused the papers. 7. The question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 “Whether the properties sought to be brought on record by way of an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in I.A.No.33, are in consonance with the judgment of this Court in RFA No.4034/2013? 8. In order to provide an opportunity to both the petitioner and the respondents to make their submission as regards the judgment in RFA No.4034/2013 and its impact, both the petitioner and respondents counsel were permitted to file their respective memos detailing, in brief, the properties which are available for partition as held in RFA No.4034/2013. Sadly, the memos filed by both counsel are self-serving and filed with an intention to overreach the judgment in RFA No.4034/2013 and are so filed contrary to the said judgment. 9. In view of the matter, those memos are required to be rejected with a specific observation as regards the conduct of the parties in filing such memos in a - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 brazen manner to try and negate the judgment in RFA No.4034/2013. Particularly, the conduct of respondent No.3 is required to be deprecated, inasmuch as, even after rejection of the claim of respondent No.3, who was plaintiff No.3 and the mother of plaintiff No.2 and wife of the deceased plaintiff No.1, has sought to once again assert her rights over the properties which had been negated in the judgment in RFA No.4034/2013. In fact, the amendment application, which had been filed by plaintiff No.3 in I.A.No.33 in the FDP proceedings, is also a complete abuse of the process of court through misinterpretation of the judgment in RFA No.4034/2013. The properties described in Annexure-A to the said application are sought to be included in the FDP proceedings with description of the properties by referring to the judgment given in a completely improper manner. It is not only the plaintiff No.3 who can be blamed for the same, since the said application is a well-drafted application - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 interpreting the orders passed in RFA No.4034/2013 and is a deliberate attempt made by plaintiff No.3 to abuse the process of the court. 10. It is for that purpose that, this Court is constrained to refer to the judgment in RFA No.4034/2013 and other connected matters, which would make clear the abuse of process resorted to by plaintiff No.3. 10.1. At Paragraph 67, this Court has held that no relief for setting aside the partition of the year 1954 and the mutation entries carried out thereafter had been challenged and as such held that the partition having taken effect in the year 1954 and acted upon, there being a severance, it is only the properties which are allotted to plaintiff No.1 under the said partition deed which would enure to his benefit, and after him, to his wife and daughter, that is plaintiffs No.2 and 3. This - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 Court went on to deal with all the properties in detail from para 68 onwards. 10.2. Para 68 deals with property in Block No. 164 and as such held that the said property was purchased in the name of Seetawwa and constituted her self-property in terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, and as such, held that the said property cannot be said to be a joint family property and was the individual property of Seetawwa, which she had dealt with by a Will bequeathing the same to defendant No.8, who in turn sold it to defendants No.9 and 10, and as such, held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to said property. In that background, including the said property in Block No.164 in Schedule-A is completely misconceived and a deliberate misrepresentation made by plaintiff No.3. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 10.3. Insofar as property covered under Block No.247/1 and 247/2 described in Sl.Nos.2 and 3 of Annexure-A, this Court has held that, the property covered Block No.247/1 is owned jointly by defendant No.2 and Plaintiff No.1. Thus, it is from the half share of Plaintiff No.1 in the said properties that a claim could be made by Plaintiffs No.2 and 3. 10.4. Insofar as property covered under Block No.247/2 is concerned, the said property having been gifted to a school by Plaintiff No.1 during his lifetime, this Court has categorically held that the said property cannot be the subject matter of partition. 10.5. Insofar as the property in Block No.248 described in Sl.No.4 of Annexure-A, this Court has held that the said property having been mutated in the name of plaintiff No.1, the deceased Govindraddi, and plaintiff No.3, it is - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 only as regards the share of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.3 that they can have a right. There being no particular share prescribed in the partition, plaintiff No.1, deceased Govindraddi and plaintiff No.3 would have equal share of 1/3rd each. Thus, it is only 2/3rd share in Block No.248 which would be available for partition. 10.6. As regards the property in Block No.255 at Sl.No.5 is concerned, the same was subject matter of the partition and fell to the share of Govindraddi, as regards which, the plaintiffs cannot have any right. 10.7. As regards item Nos.6 and 7, relating to Block No.202/1 and 202/2, the properties having been mutated in the name of Govindraddi and Seetawwa, this Court held that the plaintiffs cannot have any right in relation thereto. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 10.8. Similar is the finding of this Court in respect to Block Nos.67, 201, 198/1 and 198/2 described in Sl.Nos.8 to 11 of Annexure-A. 10.9. As regards Block No.84/1A, 84/2, 23/1 and 23/2, described at Sl.Nos.12 to 15 of Annexure-A, those properties also standing in the name of the defendants, this court has held that the plaintiffs cannot have any right in respect to the said properties. 10.10. As regards properties in Block No.880, 881, 882 and 875, described at Sl.Nos.16 to 19, this Court in para 84 has held that the mutation entries cannot be disturbed and the plaintiffs will not have any right. 10.11. The Properties in Block No.164 is dealt with in para 74, Block 247 at para No.76, Block 247/2 at para 78, Block 248 at para 79, Block 255 at para 80, Block 202/1 and 202/2 at para 81, - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 Blocks 67, 207, 198/1, 198/2 at para 82, Blocks 84/1A, 842/2, 23/1 and 23/2 at para 83, Blocks 880, 881, 882, 872 at para 84. 10.12. Insofar as the house properties at panchayat No.110, panchayat No.04, panchayat No.05 and the open sites in panchayat No.001, panchayat No.222 and panchayat No.002, described at Sl.No.22 and 25, this Court has not interfered with the Panchayat resolutions and as such held that the plaintiffs would not be entitled to any share therein contrary to the Panchayat resolution at para 85 of the judgment. 10.13. Insofar as the properties which had been allotted to Fakkiraddi under the partition deed of 1954, a Will having been executed by him and the Will not being disputed, it is only the bequest made under the Will which would have to be considered as regards the shares of - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 the plaintiffs No.2 and 3, claiming under plaintiff No.1, in whose favour certain properties are bequeathed. 10.14. Insofar as the properties falling to the share of Yallaraddi under the partition of 1954, on his death, his properties were allotted to Fakkiraddi were 202/1, 202/2, 880 and 875. Only these properties being subject matter of the Will, the bequest is required to be considered in terms of the said Will as held in para 87 of the judgment. 10.15. As regards the properties falling to the share of Yallaraddi, under the partition deed of 1954, Plaintiff No.1 Govindaraddi and defendant No.8, succeeded to the said properties in terms of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The properties coming to the share of Plaintiff No.1 having been dealt with during his lifetime, those transactions were also not - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 disturbed by this Court in the judgment in RFA No.4034/2013 and it is only if any property has not been dealt with by plaintiff No.1 during his lifetime as regards the properties of Yallaraddi succeeded to by plaintiff No.1 that the FDP Court would have to deal with. 10.16. Be that as it may, it is only 1/3rd of the properties of Yallaraddi that plaintiff No.1 succeeded to and not the entire properties. It is only after ascertaining these properties in terms of the above, which come to the share of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 that, as regards those properties, an enquiry is to be held under Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC to determine the profits from those properties from the date of the suit till the date of the actual delivery of possession, in terms of para 98 and para (vii) of the operative portion of the judgment. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 11. The above discussion would clearly and categorically indicate the abuse by plaintiff No.3 of the process of court as indicated above. Plaintiff No.3 by filing a so- called innocuous application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which came to be numbered as I.A.No.33, has sought to include all the properties., though by mentioning that the partition has to be made in terms of the modified decree in judgment in RFA No.4034/2013. Plaintiff No.3 has sought to include all the properties which is completely malafide. 12. Apart therefrom, in the schedule to the application, there are several properties which have been described which are categorically stated to be “not suit properties”. If the properties were not suit properties, the question of including them in the FDP proceedings would not at all arise, that too by way of an amendment said to be made in furtherance of the modified judgment and decree in RFA No.4034/2013. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 13. The FDP court, without considering these aspects, by its order dated 27.11.2024 on I.A.No.33, has permitted the petitioner to amend the petition with a direction to both the parties to cooperate with the Court for disposal. While allowing the said application for amendment, the FDP Court has held that, if the proposed amendment is not in consonance with the modified decree, then the petitioner would certainly not be entitled to any relief and this would be considered at the time of disposal of the case on merits, and has further gone on to hold that, if an amendment would be fatal to the case of the defendants, it cannot be allowed. Since it is not so, sufficient grounds have been made out and allowed the application. 14. The general rule applicable to amendments would not apply to the amendment made in furtherance of a judgment of a Court. It was the duty of the FDP Court to consider the application for amendment in - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 terms of the judgment in RFA No.4034/2013 and only thereafter to consider the amendment, which could be allowed and which would have to be rejected. The FDP Court could not have postponed the consideration of the amendment being in consonance with the judgment in RFA No.4034/2013 to a later stage as that done by the FDP Court. 15. When any right in a property has been denied in a suit, the said property cannot be included in an FDP proceeding, requiring an enquiry, evidence, appointment of the Commissioner and the like, as regards to said property. It was therefore required of the FDP Court to have considered I.A.No.33 by referring to the judgment in RFA No.4034/2013 and only allowed those amendments which were in consonance with the judgment in RFA No.4034/2013 without postponing the same. 16. The FDP Court has apparently been completely misled by plaintiff No.3 by contending that the - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 amendment is innocuous one and only the rights as per the modified decree in RFA No.4034/2013 would have to be determined by the FDP Court. 17. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed on I.A.No.33 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dated 27.11.2024, does not stand muster and is required to be set aside. 18. Insofar as the application filed by the petitioner herein, who is respondent No.2 in the FDP proceeding, contending that the proceedings have to be dropped since the decree has been satisfied, it is again an abuse of the process of court. A bald allegation being made by defendant No.2 that the decree is satisfied. when specific directions have been issued in RFA No.4034/2013. is completely misconceived and is also an abuse of the process of court. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 19. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the rejection of the said application in I.A.No.31, filed under Section 151 of CPC, for dropping of the said proceedings and the order dated 27.11.2024 on I.A.No.32 filed for review of the order dated 25.09.2024, have been rightly rejected by the FDP Court. It is for the FDP Court to determine the shares of the parties in terms of the judgment in RFA No.4034/2013, by holding necessary enquiry. 20. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i. The order dated 25.09.2024 on I.A.No.31 and order dated 27.11.2024 on I.A.No.32 at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ to the writ petition are not disturbed, and stand confirmed. ii. The order dated 27.11.2024 in regard to I.A.No.33 is set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration of the said - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3677 WP No. 100035 of 2025 application I.A.No.33 in terms of the above observations and the judgment in RFA No.4034/2013, as indicated above. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1