- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2520 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. BABA JAN S/O LATE JAHANGIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. MAHABOOB PASHA S/O LATE JAHANGIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 3. PERU S/O LATE JAHANGIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. SADIQ S/O LATE JAHANGIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 5. MUBARAK S/O LATE JAHANGIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 6. NURULLA S/O LATE JAHANGIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 7. KHATIJA S/O LATE JAHANGIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 8. SMT.YASMIN S/O LATE JAHANGIR KHAN Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.585, 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, DARGA MAL, DOORAVANINAGAR, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560 016. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAM MOHAN M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O MUNINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT HURULUKURKI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110 2. SRI. K. CHENNAPPA SO LATE KEMPANNA AGED MAJOR 3. SMT. PILLAMMA W/O LATE MOOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 4. NARAYANASWAMY S/P LATE MOOGAPPA AGED MAJOR 5. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE MOOGAPPA AGED MAJOR RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT HURULUKURKI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.K.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. R. CHANDRANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.12.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI IN REJECTING I.A.NO.7 IN O.S.NO.831/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff in O.S. No.831/2007 pending consideration before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli (henceforth referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) have filed this petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 19.12.2019, by which an application (I.A - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 No.7) filed by them under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) was rejected. 2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioners herein are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff while the respondent No.1 herein was the defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 5 were the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.2 before the Trial Court. 3. The suit in O.S. No.831/2007 was filed for declaration of title to the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession. The plaintiff now deceased claimed that his father -Mr. Ameer Khan was the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.43/3 of Hurulgurki village, Vijayapura hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, measuring 36 guntas. He contended that during the year 1960, due to communal tension in the village, his ancestors migrated from the village. Taking advantage of the situation, the defendants took possession of the suit schedule property and created fake documents and claimed that the suit schedule property belonged to them. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 plaintiff now deceased claimed that the RTC of the suit property stood in the name of Mr. Amir Khan, son of Mr. Khadar Khan up to 1970-1971 and thereafter, from 1971-72, it was changed to the name of the defendant No.2. The plaintiff claimed that neither he nor his ancestors had sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.2. He contended that from the year 1974-75, the name of the defendant No.1 was entered in the revenue records. He issued a notice dated 13.06.2007 calling upon the defendants to hand over possession of the suit property. Since the defendants did not comply with the demand in the notice, the plaintiff filed the instant suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. 4. The defendant No.2 (now deceased) contested the suit claiming that the plaintiff and his father had purchased 01 acre of land in Sy. No.43/3 of Hurulagurki village on 13.07.1966. He claimed that the plaintiff, his sister-in-law, Mrs. Ashabi and his brother Mr. Mehaboob Pasha had alienated the said land in Sy. No.43/3 in favour of the defendant No.2 in terms of a sale deed registered as document No.1465/1996-97. He claimed that the defendant No.2 was placed in peaceful possession of the suit property, consequent to which the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 revenue records were transferred to his name. He contended that in the sale deed, the survey number of the property sold was wrongly shown as Sy. No.40 though the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed corresponded to the boundaries of the property bearing Sy. No.43/3. He contended that thereafter, a sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant No.1. He contended that the plaintiff, his father and his brother had sold land bearing Sy. Nos.43/1, 43/2, 43/4 and 43/5 in favour of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 taking advantage of the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed, got her name entered in the revenue records. The defendant No.2 then challenged it before the Civil Court which ultimately ended before this Court where the defendant No.2 now deceased, was given liberty to establish his title and also seek for possession of his property after taking steps in accordance with law. The defendant No.2 filed the suit in O.S. No.122/2006 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Devanahalli, and the dispute was settled amicably. The defendant No.2, therefore, claimed that he was in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and all the revenue records were transferred to his name. He also contended that the plaintiffs did not challenge the sale deed for - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 more than 42 years and that they had lost the right to recover the possession of the suit property as the same was barred by the law of limitation. 5. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed issues and set down the case for evidence. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed an application (I.A No.7) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC., to incorporate additional pleadings in the plaint i.e., to add Paragraph Nos.7(A) to 7(H) and also an additional prayer to declare that the judgment dated 30.07.1998 passed in RSA No.1204/1994 was not binding on them. The application was contested by one of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.2 i.e., defendant No.2(b). He claimed that the suit was filed in the year 2007 and that the plaintiffs were protracting the proceedings. He also contended that allowing the plaintiffs to amend the plaint would result in introducing a new case which is impermissible. He also contended that the additional relief sought for by the plaintiffs was not maintainable before the Civil Court. He also claimed that the additional prayer sought for by the plaintiffs was highly belated and barred by the law of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 limitation and hence, the Court may not allow the said application. 6. The Trial Court after considering the contentions urged in the application as well as the objections to it, held that the suit was filed in the year 2007 and the plaintiff had taken a number of adjournments to lead evidence. It held that on 02.03.2016, though the Court was inclined to dismiss the suit, it granted time to the plaintiff to lead evidence by imposing heavy cost of Rs.1,000/-. It, therefore, held that the application filed by the plaintiffs to amend the plaint was not bona fide and that they had not shown proper and good reasons to allow the application. Thus, it rejected the application in terms of the impugned order on cost of Rs.2,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff are before this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff contended that the defendant No.2 had filed a written statement inter alia contending that the land bearing Sy. No.43/3 of Hurulagurki village measuring 01 acre was sold by the plaintiff, his sister-in-law and his brother in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 terms of a sale deed bearing No.1465/1996-97. He submitted that the defendant No.2 claimed that the property conveyed under the aforesaid sale deed was wrongly mentioned as Sy. No.40 though what was conveyed was Sy. No.43/3. He thus contended that the plaintiffs were entitled to file further pleadings in reply to the written statement filed by the defendant No.2. He thus contends that the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs was in the nature of further pleadings and the same was necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the suit. He also contends that the suit was listed for evidence and that the trial in the suit had not begun when the application (I.A. No.7) was filed. Therefore, he contends that the Trial Court must have granted an opportunity to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint so as to place on record the facts which are necessary to rebut the assertions made by the defendant No.2 in the written statement. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(d) submitted that the plaintiffs have now contended that though defendant No.1 claimed that she had purchased two items of property in Sy. Nos.43 and 43/5 from Ameer Sabi and Jahangir Sabi in terms of the sale deed dated - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 01.04.1960, the land in Sy. No.43/5 measured only 27 guntas which was already sold by Mr. Ahmed Khan in favour of Smt. Bibi Jan Amma and that there was no property left but the defendant No.1 by colluding with her vendors had got a sale deed in respect of Sy. No.43/5, which did not exist. Later, instead of getting the revenue entries entered in respect of the said two items, the defendant No.1 without the knowledge of the plaintiffs’ grandfather got her name entered in the revenue records in respect of Sy. No.43/3 to seem as if Mrs. Bibi Jan Bi Amma had alienated the same in her favour. He also contended that the plaintiffs now claimed that the defendant No.1 got her name entered in respect of the land in Sy. No.43/5 in respect of the entire extent though what she had purchased was a lesser extent. Therefore, he contends that land in Sy. No.43/5 is not the subject matter of the suit and hence, the additional pleadings sought to be placed on record by the plaintiffs is wholly unnecessary. He also contends that the plaintiffs have tried to narrate about certain transactions brought about in respect of land in Sy. No.40 of Hurulgurki village which also was not necessary as Sy. No.40 was not the subject matter of the suit. He also contends that the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 proceedings which resulted in a settlement in R.S.A No.1204/1994, is sought to be challenged in the Civil Court, which is impermissible. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 10. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the application (I.A No.7) filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the pleadings after issues were framed by the Trial Court is impermissible. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for defendant No.1 and the learned counsel for defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(d) and perused the material on record. 12. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff (now deceased) was claiming title to the land bearing Sy No.43/3. The defendant No.2 claimed that the plaintiff, his brother and his sister-in-law had alienated the land bearing Sy. No.43/3 in terms of a sale deed bearing No.1465/1996-97. However, he contended that instead of mentioning survey number that was - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 conveyed as 43/3, it was mentioned as Sy. No.40. He also claimed that the boundaries of the property mentioned in the sale deed corresponded to the boundaries of land bearing Sy. No.43/3. The plaintiffs have now attempted to trace back the particulars of land bearing Sy. No.43/3 and the manner in which the revenue entries were made in respect of land bearing Sy. No.43/3 as well as Sy. No.40. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to file further pleadings in reply to the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 explaining the circumstances under which the revenue records were brought about in respect of the land bearing Sy. Nos.43/3 and 40/3. The Trial Court, must have held that the additional pleadings sought to be brought on record by the plaintiffs was necessary for the purpose of conclusively and effectively adjudicating the dispute between the parties. 13. However, in so far as the relief claimed by the plaintiffs to declare the judgment dated 30.07.1998 passed in R.S.A. No.1204/1994 as not binding upon them, the question whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the said relief in view of the claim of the defendants that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were parties to the said proceedings may arise. Nonetheless, - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 the question whether the additional prayer sought for by the plaintiffs deserve to be granted or not, has to be considered by the Trial Court. However, the amendment to introduce an additional prayer, even if permitted cannot revert back to the date of the suit but should be given effect to from the date of the application (I.A. No.7) so as to ensure that the defendants are entitled to raise the defence of limitation available to them. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be interfered with. 14. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed in part. The application (I.A. No.7) filed by the plaintiffs is allowed in part. The plaintiffs are permitted to plead paragraph Nos.7(B), 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), 7(F) and 7(G) as additional pleadings in reply to the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 (now deceased). In so far as the additional relief sought for by the plaintiffs, namely, to declare the judgment dated 30.07.1998 passed in R.S.A. No.1204/1994 as not binding on them is concerned, the said relief shall not revert back to the date of the suit but shall be given effect to from the date of the application (I.A No.7) and the defendants are entitled to raise all contentions including the issue of limitation. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:7220 WP No. 2520 of 2021 15. It is open for the defendants to file an additional written statement in so far as the additional relief sought for by the plaintiffs as stated above. 16. Since the suit is filed in the year 2007, the Trial Court is requested to take up the suit – O.S. No.831/2007 for expeditious disposal in accordance with under the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50