- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31306 WP No. 9533 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 9533 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHOBHA N., W/O RANGASWAMY K. L., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO 303, 3RD FLOOR, ANNAPOORNA S.T.G.PARK, NEST APARTMENT, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NEAR MATHA AMRITHNANDAMAY MUTT, BENGALURU – 560 110. 2. SMT. POORNIMA N., W/O B.S.DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.136, LAKSHMI NIVASA, BEHIND ANNAPOORNA S.T.G PARK, NEST APARTMENT, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NEAR MATHA AMRITHNANDAMAY MUTT, BENGALURU – 560 110. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVINDRA B. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. G.M.NARAYANAPPA, S/O LATE MUNINANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, 2. SMT. G.T.JAYAMMA, W/O G.M.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31306 WP No. 9533 of 2024 RESIDING AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE, RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 562 162. 3. SMT. RATHNA N., W/O V.RAJKUAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT PRESTIGE KENSINGTON, GARDEN APARTMENT NO.3138, CORNWALL HMT FACTORY ROAD, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 013. 4. SMT. NIRMALA N., W/O C.M.LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.74, LAKSHMI NIVASA, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 12TH BLOCK, II STAGE, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU – 560 072. 5. SMT. KAVITHA N., W/O JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ARSHINAKUNTE, ADARSHA NAGAR, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 213. 6. SRI. MANJUNATHA G. N., S/O G.M.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE, RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 562 162. 7. SRI. BEERAKA VISHVESHWARA RAO, S/O KOTA SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT NO.23-201, NEHRU NAGAR, NANDIGAMA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31306 WP No. 9533 of 2024 ANDHRA PRADESH – 521 185. 8. SRI. MUDUNURI VENKATESHWARA VERMA, S/O ESHWAR RAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.14-7-5, RAYAETA, NARASPUR, WG DISTRICT – 534 275, ANDHRA PRADESH. 9. SRI. J.SUBBARAJU, S/O LATE KONDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT MUKKINADA, NEAR, ANAPARTI, RAJANAGARAM, MANDAL, EG DISTRICT – 533 342, ANDHRA PRADESH. 10. SRI. KALIDINDI VENKATA SURYA, SATHYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O RAMACHANDRA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.2-129, MYPA VILLAGE, PALKODERA MANDAL, WG DISTRICT – 534 186, ANDHRA PRADESH. 11. SRI. ASHWATHAPPA P., S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT, SIDDEDAHALLI MAIN ROAD, HESARGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 073. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JAYANTH VENKATARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R4, R5, R6 AND R11; R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 12.02.2025; NOTICE TO R9 AND R10 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31306 WP No. 9533 of 2024 ORDER DATED 12.02.2025; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/03/2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA IN OS NO.304/2020 ORDER ON IA NO.IV AS ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Ravindra B.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Jayanth Venkataram, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 11 and have perused the material on record. 2. Petitioners-plaintiffs are before this Court calling in question an order dated 01.03.2024, by which, the application filed by the defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 11 seeking amendment of the plaint schedule property comes to be allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31306 WP No. 9533 of 2024 3. The suit is for partition and separate possession. The plaintiffs institute the suit seeking partition of the joint family property, according to them are the suit schedule properties. After the appearance of the defendants, Written Statement is filed and later comes up an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directing the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to include all the properties. 4. It is no doubt true that in a suit for partition, all joint family properties should be the suit schedule properties so that the partition would not become fragmented or lead to multiplicity of proceedings. That would not mean that the respondents-defendants can dictate the plaintiffs, to act in a particular manner, or amend the suit schedule properties, particularly in an application filed by the defendants. It was always open to the defendants to register their Counter Claim by including the properties that they now want to include by way of the amendment of registering a Counter Claim in accordance with law. Reserving such liberty, I deem it appropriate to pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31306 WP No. 9533 of 2024 O R D E R [i] Petition is allowed. [ii] The order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala in O.S.No.304/2020 on IA No.IV stands quashed. [iii] Respondents-defendants are reserved liberty to register their Counter Claim in accordance with law and to include, if they so desire the properties that are the subject matter of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT:SS