- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26037 WP No. 8047 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.8047 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. DODDAPUTTAMALLAIAH S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, MALAGALU, KRISHNANDANAGARA, 1ST MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. CHIKKAMALLAIAH S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O LATE GANGAIAH, 3. SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 4. SMT. GANGANARASAMMA W/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT GOLLARADODDI VILLAGE, KOOTGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 109. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26037 WP No. 8047 of 2019 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGAR IN O.S.NO.153/2007 DTD:28.4.2018 AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.04.2018, on an application filed by the respondents No.1 to 3 seeking correction of the plaint by modification of their share which came to be allowed in O.S.No.153/2007 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara.. 2. Sri.Shivashankar K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents No.1 to 3 filed a suit for partition and separate possession. They are the children of respondent No.4/defendant No.1, who is the second wife of the late Gangaiah. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrayed as defendant No.2 in the said suit. He is the son born out of wedlock between late Gangaiah and his first wife. The suit for partition came to be decreed by allocating share of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26037 WP No. 8047 of 2019 3/15th to the respondents No.1 to 3. Being aggrieved, they filed appeal which came to be dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 3. It is further submitted that the respondents initiated the final decree proceedings and in the said proceedings, the Court Commissioner came to be appointed and the matter was posted for accepting the Court Commissioner’s report. The respondents No.1 to 3 filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking to correct the plaint and consequently the judgment and decree to the effect that there is a typographical error in writing the share of the respondents No.1 to 3 as 3/15th instead of 3/5th. The trial Court allowed the said application under the impugned order by observing that due to oversight the plaintiffs have mentioned in the prayer column that they are entitled for partition and separate possession of their share by 3/15th instead of 3/5th. 4. It is submitted that it is not the arithmetical/typographical error as claimed in the application. But the proposed amendment would alter the judgment and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26037 WP No. 8047 of 2019 decree of the trial Court which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are the children of second wife and defendant No.1 being second wife of late Gangaiah are entitled for half of the share of said Gangaigh and the remaining half to the petitioner by ignoring these aspects, trial Court under the impugned order allowed the application on incorrect premises. Hence, he seeks to allow the application by setting aside the impugned order. 5. Though the notice of this petition is served on the other side, they remained absent. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 7. The respondents No.1 to 3 filed O.S.No.153/2007 seeking for relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The suit came to be decreed on 03.07.2012 holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26037 WP No. 8047 of 2019 and separate possession of their share of 3/15th in all the suit schedule properties. The records indicate that plaintiffs assailed the judgment and decree in R.A.No.63/2011 which came to be dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.153/2007 dated 03.07.2012. The final decree proceedings were initiated for drawing final decree as per the preliminary decree dated 03.07.2012. 8. In the said proceedings, respondents No.1 to 3 filed an application under Section 152 of the CPC, claiming that there is an arithmetical/typographical error in the plaint averments and sought to correct the same and consequently the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The trial Court allowed the said application under the impugned order by recording a finding that there is a bonafide mistake due to oversight in mentioning the share of the plaintiffs in prayer column. 9. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed grave error in coming to such conclusion. The Appellate Court while confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.153/2007 at paragraph No.26 observed as under: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26037 WP No. 8047 of 2019 "… … … It is an admitted fact that, plaintiffs are the children of defendant no.1 who is the 2nd wife of late Gangaiah. Further it is also admitted fact that, defendant no.2 is the son o late Gangaiah born through his 1st wife. Therefore, plaintiffs and defendant no.1 are together entitled to ½ share in the suit schedule properties and where as defendant no.2 is also entitled to ½ share in the suit schedule properties. Hence plaintiffs are entitled to 3/15th share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the suit of plaintiffs is to be decreed." 10. The aforesaid finding of the Appellate Court is in consonance with the finding of the trial Court in the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2012 passed in O.S.No.153/2007, the said finding of the Appellate Court has attained finality which clearly demonstrate that defendant No.2 is the second wife of the late Gangaiah and the plaintiffs are the children of defendant No.2 are entitled for half a share in suit schedule properties. Hence things stood thus, the trial Court under the garb of exercising power under Section 152 of the CPC, has proceeded to alter the judgment and decree in O.S.No.153/2007 as well as decree in R.A.No.63/2011 of the Appellate Court which is impermissible. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26037 WP No. 8047 of 2019 11. In my considered view, such exercise of power by the trial Court would run contrary to the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The scope of Section 152 of the CPC is very limited, unless the parties to the proceedings bring to the notice of the Court that there is an arithmetical error in the judgment and decree, the trial Court cannot proceed to allow the application under Section 152 of the CPC and amend the judgment and decree which is sought in the final decree proceedings. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 28.04.2018 at Annexure-A passed in O.S.No.153/2007 by Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara is set-aside. iii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30