- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2003 WP No. 105395 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 105395 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SARASWATI W/O. DATTATRAYA BANDIWADEKAR, AGE: 92 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H/NO.614/3, RAJHUNS GALLI, ANGOL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590007. 2. SADASHIV S/O. DATTATRAYA BANDIWADEKAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O.H/NO.614/3, RAJHUNS GALLI, ANGOL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590007. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SADANAND S/O. SHANKAR BANDIWADEKAR, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: GOLDSMITH, R/O. H/NO.614/3, RAJHUNS GALLI, ANGOL, DIST: BELAGAVI -590007. 2. JAGADISH S/O. SHANKAR BANDIWADEKAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: GOLDSMITH, R/O. H/NO.614/3, RAJHUNS GALLI, ANGOL, DIST: BELAGAVI -590007. 3. VIJU W/O. ASHOK KAREKAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOOLD WORK, R/O. LATURKAR CHAWL, RAJHUNS GALLI, ANGOL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590006. 4. SOU. SHOBHA W/O. VIJAY SHIRODKAR @ SONAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. LATURKAR CHAWL, RAJHUNS GALLI, ANGOL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590006. 5. KALAWATI W/O. GAJANAN NANDGADKAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad Date: 2025.02.04 15:45:15 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2003 WP No. 105395 of 2024 R/O. DESAI GALLI, AT POST. ADAKUR, TAL: CHANGAD, DIST: KOLAPHUR-590006. 6. YASHODA W/O. SADANAND BANDIWADEKAR, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H/NO.614/3, RAJHUNS GALLI, ANGOL, DIST: BELAGAVI -590006. 7. JYOTI W/O. JAGADISH BANDIWADEKAR, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H/NO.614/3, RAJHUNS GALLI, ANGOL, DIST: BELAGAVI -590006. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2024 ON IA.NO.8 PASSED IN OS NO.357/2016 BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Service of notice to respondents is dispensed with in view of proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioners are before this court seeking for the following reliefs: I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other Writ quashing the Order dated 01.03.2024 on ia.no.8 passed in OS No.357/2016 by the II Additional - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2003 WP No. 105395 of 2024 Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi vide Annexure-F. II. Issue any other Writ or direction as this honorable court deems fit to meet the ends of justice. 3. Petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.357/2016 seeking for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property therein. Notice having been served, defendants had entered appearance, filed their written statement, issues were framed, evidence was led and matter was posted for final argument. 4. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking for amendment of the plaint. By way of the amendment, the plaintiffs proposed to introduce certain facts in the form of pleadings at paragraph No.6A and additional prayer at column No.’aa’ seeking for declaration that the Gift Deed executed in favour of defendants No.6 and 7 pertaining to one of the properties on 02.11.2010 was not binding on a legitimate share of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2003 WP No. 105395 of 2024 plaintiffs. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 01.03.2024 in that background that the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Sri Vitthal S. Teli., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs came to know about the said Gift Deed only during the evidence of the respondents, till then the plaintiffs were not aware of it and as such, it is only after they had knowledge, they sought for amendment, which was required to be considered and allowed by trial Court. 6. Having gone through the pleadings and the impugned order of the trial Court. I am of the considered opinion that the suit being one for partition and separate possession. It is for the plaintiffs to establish their rights in the property. If at all any transaction has occurred by any of the coparceners, the said transaction would always be subservient to the rights of the parties, that being so, it would also not be required for the plaintiffs to even seek for setting aside and seek for declaration that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2003 WP No. 105395 of 2024 the Gift Deed is not binding on the plaintiffs as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi Nambiar vs. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 90. In that view of the matter, irrespective of whether the amendment application is rejected, the trial Court would always have to consider the aspect of the entitlement of the plaintiffs’ dehors the Gift Deed. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Court. It is for the plaintiffs to establish their rights. 7. In terms of the above, petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37