- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5679 WP No. 102688 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 102688 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. USHA W/O SHAMU BANAKAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HANAGAL, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SMT. SUJATA W/O PALAKSHAPPA GOUDAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, R/O: SIDDAVEERAPPA BADAVANE, 13TH CROSS, DAVANAGERE, TQ: AND DIST: DAVANAGERE. 3. SMT. SAVITRI W/O HANUMANTAPPA DODDAMANI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GOURISHANKARNAGAR, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.G.MOGALI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VASUDEV S/O VENKAREDDI KENCHARADDER, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAJARAJESHWARI, “A” CROSS, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 115. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5679 WP No. 102688 of 2022 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, NEELANAGOUDA COMPLEX, OPP. L.I.C. OFFICER, P.B. ROAD, HAVERI, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 3. PRADEEP S/O SHIVAPPA NANDEPPALAVAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: RAJARAJESHWARI, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 115. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) 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: ORAL ORDER Sri.P.G.Mogali., counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Aravind D.Kulkarni., counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Anoop G.Deshpande., counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Court of III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5679 WP No. 102688 of 2022 I.A. No.V in O.S.No.79/2017 vide Annexure-G and allow I.A. No.V vide Annexure-E. 3. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The short facts are these: The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking to declare them as the owners of the suit property i.e., out house in R.S. No.796/1A+1B, Plot No.51, Municipal No.86 measuring 760 Sq. Ft. (40ft X 60ft) by adverse possession and consequential relief of injunction and to declare that the alleged illegal sale deed in respect of the suit property is illegal and void and cannot be enforceable against the plaintiffs. The defendants filed written statement. After seven years the plaintiffs moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to amend the plaint. The same was objected. The Trial Court vide order dated 20.06.2022 dismissed the application. This order is called in 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. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5679 WP No. 102688 of 2022 6. Counsel Sri.P.G.Mogali., in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the rejection of the application is bad in law. He argued by saying that the plaintiffs sought amendment to contend that their mother was only an ostensible owner. He submits that except framing issues, the evidence was not commenced in the Trial Court. Hence, there was no delay on the part of the plaintiffs to seek amendment of the plaint. Counsel, therefore, submits that viewed from any angle, the rejection is improper and hence, the order may be set aside and the Writ Petition may be allowed. Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following decision to contend that there is no delay: MAHILA RAMKALI DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. NANDRAM (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS reported in (2015) SCCR 568 7. Counsel for the respondents justified the order passed by the Trial Court. 8. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5679 WP No. 102688 of 2022 9. The short controversy is about the rejection of the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs. Suffice it to note that the suit was instituted in 2015. In the plaint, the plaintiffs specifically prayed that they should be declared as the owners of the property in question by adverse possession. Strangely, after lapse of almost seven years, they moved an application to amend the plaint contending that the defendants colluding with each other, illegally trespassed into the suit schedule property. Hence, they were constrained to seek an amendment to the plaint to incorporate the prayer of actual possession and delete the plea of adverse possession. In my view, such an amendment cannot be permitted. The original pleading and the proposed amendment to the plaint are contradictory to each other. The plaintiffs cannot approbate and reprobate, they cannot blow hot and cold. In the original plaint, the plaintiffs specifically pleaded that the property was purchased by Smt.Shanthamma W/o. deceased Shivappa Nandeppalavar, however, in the proposed amendment they want to contend that Smt.Shantha is only an ostensible owner. There is material alteration and by virtue of proposed amendment, the plaintiffs intend to bring new facts, this would prejudice the defendants. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5679 WP No. 102688 of 2022 Hence, such a amendment cannot be permitted. The Trial Court extenso referred to the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and rightly rejected the application. In my view, the same does not require any interference. Counsel for the petitioners has cited a decision referred to supra, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its facts. The present case is also tested in light of the aforesaid decision. 10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH/MRP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 11