- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6366 WP No. 109034 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 109034 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. DUNDAPPA PATIL, SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR’S 1A. SUMITRA SHANKAR MUDIMANI, W/O. SHANKAR, RESIDING AT NO.182, MANGANKOPPA, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI. 1B. VIDYAWATI DUNDAPPA BIRAJDAR, W/O. DUNDAPPA, #14, SOHAM PLAZA, SAVERA NAGAR, VIJAPUR ROAD, SOLAPUR-413004. 1C. MUDAKANAGOUDA PATIL, S/O. DUNDAPPA #135, KHB COLONY, 4TH CROSS, NEAR SUB-JAIL, VISHWESHWAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580032. 1D. SUNANDA BADAPPANAVAR, W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR, #105 GG KUSUGAL HOUSE MAIN ROAD, DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI-580028. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NIKHIL PATIL, ADV. FOR PETITIONERS NO.1A TO 1D) AND: 1. SMT. GEETA W/O. NIRANJANAYYA HIREMATH @ NAVALAGUNDMATH, Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.19 10:40:53 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6366 WP No. 109034 of 2017 AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO.9, BASAVA COLONY, ANCHATAGERI LAYOUT, BIDNAL, TQ: HUBBALLI. 2. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. MADIWALGOUDA PATIL AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BHAIRIDEVARKOPPA, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. KAMALAVVA D/O. MADIWALGOUDA PATIL, AGE:23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHAIRIDEVARKOPPA, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. MANJULA D/O. MADIWALGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BHAIRIDEVARKOPPA, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 5. SUJATA D/O. MADIWALGOUDA PATIL, AGE:15 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHAIRIDEVARKOPPA, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 6. VIJAYALAXMI W/O. GANGADHAR NOOLVI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O: KUSAGAL, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 7. CHANDRAKANT S/O. KONDIBA JADHAV, AGE: ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SARAFKATTI, BARDANSAAL, HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 AND 7 ARE SERVED; PETITION AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.6 - STANDS DISMISSED V/O. DATED 03.09.2024) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6366 WP No. 109034 of 2017 DIRECTIONS, TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2017 PASSED IN I.A.NO.20 IN OS.NO.390/2013 AT ANNEXURE-F BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HUBBALLI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) This petition was originally filed by defendant No.6 assailing the order of learned Judge allowing the amendment application filed in I.A.No.20, thereby permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The said order is under challenge. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners. 3. Respondent No.1/plaintiff is served with notice and has not chosen to contest the petition. 4. Respondent No.1 has filed the suit in O.S.No.390/2013 seeking relief of specific performance of contract based on an Agreement of Sale dated 04.05.2010. The first respondent/plaintiff by way of proposed amendment sought leave of the Court to include an addition paragraph - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6366 WP No. 109034 of 2017 6A and also by way of amendment sought to seek a relief of declaration to declare that the Sale Deeds executed by defendants No.2, 3 and 5 in favour of defendant No.7 are null and void and also the alleged Exchange Deed dated 05.12.2012 executed by defendant No.1 on behalf of herself and minor guardian of defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.7 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The Sale Deed dated 25.05.2013 is also sought to be challenged. 5. By way of proposed amendment the plaintiff alleged that the Sale Deeds entered into between defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 are conclusive and are intended to deprive the plaintiff’s right under the Agreement of Sale Deed dated 04.05.2010. 6. Learned Judge having examined the proposed amendment sought for by the plaintiff, has proceeded to allow the application. Having allowed the application, the learned Judge however has made clear that the plea of limitation is available to the defendants and as to whether the proposed amendment would relate back to the date of filing of the suit or has to be considered from the date of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6366 WP No. 109034 of 2017 filing of an application will be decided along with the main matter, liberty is also reserved to defendants to file an additional written statement. 7. Petitioners’ primary objection in the captioned petition is that this application is moved by the plaintiff after conclusion of the evidence and when the matter was set down for the arguments. Therefore, petitioners’ counsel contends that amendment application lacks bonafides and learned Judge therefore erred in allowing the application. 8. Records reveal that the 1st respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit seeking relief of specific performance of contract based on an Agreement of Sale dated 04.05.2010. The present petitioners, who are the legal heirs of defendant No.6, who has purchased the property covered under the Agreement of Sale is contesting the agreement obtained by the plaintiff. Defendant No.6 has secured the Sale Deed from defendant No.7 on 25.05.2013. The present suit is one for the relief of specific performance and therefore the plaintiff by way of an abundant caution has now sought to challenge the Sale Deed obtained by defendant No.6 through - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6366 WP No. 109034 of 2017 defendant No.7 from the original owners i.e., defendants No.1 to 5. Though the relief of declaration is formal in nature, the core issue in the case would be as to whether the plaintiff is able to substantiate and prove the suit agreement and his readiness and willingness. Similarly, defendants No.6 and 7 need to substantiate that they are the bonafide purchasers. Therefore, the relief of declaration now sought by way of amendment being a formal declaration may not seriously prejudice the rights of defendant No.6, who claims to be the subsequent purchaser. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is of the view that the learned Judge having reserved the liberty to petitioners herein to take a plea of limitation by filing an additional written statement, the rights of defendant No.6 are substantially protected. Though there is some laxness on the part of the plaintiff in seeking amendment, since the matter was posted for arguments, the learned Judge having exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6366 WP No. 109034 of 2017 9. Reserving liberty to the legal heirs of defendant No.6/petitioners to raise the plea of limitation by way of an additional written statement, captioned writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CKK Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2