- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41761 WP No. 7746 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 7746 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGARATHNA W/O R. KANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.82/8/1 2ND MAIN, 2ND PHASE MANJUNATHA NAGARA BENGALURU - 560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. R. LALITHAMMA W/O SRI R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.655, 17TH CROSS 29TH A MAIN, 6TH PHASE J P NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078. 2. SRI R. SEETHARAM S/O LATE SRI RANGE GOWDA @ RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 3. SRI R RANGANATH S/O LATE SRI RANGE GOWDA @ RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO.10 KOTE KANDHAL ROAD CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101. 4. SRI R LAKSHMAN S/O LATE SRI RANGE GOWDA Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41761 WP No. 7746 of 2021 @ RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.813/87, 3RD MAIN 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010. 5. SRI R ANAND S/O LATE SRI RANGE GOWDA @ RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.13, 2ND CROSS 12TH MAIN, KBRS LAYOUT ANNAPOORNESWARI NAGARA BENGALURU-560 091. 6. SMT. VEENA W/O SRI K S ASHWATH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS GUNDAPPA ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURU-57 101. 7. SRI VENKATESH FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF MAJOR. 8. SRI PRAKASH FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF MAJOR. 7 & 8 ARE R/AT NO.811/807 ASSESSMENT NO.766/B NEW KHATHA NO.1222/1104 KOTE KANDHAL ROAD CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 101. 9. SRI VENKATAPPA FATEHRS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF, MAJOR SHOP IN THE PROPERTY NO.813 RAMA MANDIR WARD NO.22 3RD MAIN, 4TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41761 WP No. 7746 of 2021 (BY SRI R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV., FOR C/R-1; R-2 & R-6 - SERVED; V/O DT: 15.06.2021, NOTICE TO R-7 IS D/W; V/O DTD: 04.04.2025, NOTICE TO R-9 IS D/W; SRI HARISH H.V, ADV, FOR R-5; SRI V.VISWANATH SETTY, ADV., FOR R-3 & R-4; SRI A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADV., FOR R-8) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.03.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.12 IN O.S.NO.4531/2013 BY THE XXXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendant no.5 with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 29.03.2021 passed on I.A.No.XXII in O.S.No.4531/2013 by the Court of XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Suit in OS No.4531/2013 is filed by respondent no.1 herein for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and declaring that plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41761 WP No. 7746 of 2021 petitioner is arrayed as defendant no.5. The plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 5 are brothers and sisters. In the said suit, defendant no.5 had filed written statement stating that she had executed a release deed dated 24.12.2011 releasing her right with respect to schedule item nos.1 to 12 in the suit schedule property in favour of defendant nos.1 to 4, who are her brothers. I.A.No.XII was filed by the defendant no.5 under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the written statement. The said application was opposed by plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 4 and vide the order impugned, the trial Court has rejected the said application with cost of Rs.1,000/- and being aggrieved by the same, the defendant no.5 is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendment is only to clarify as to how the registered release deed dated 24.12.2011 had come into existence. Defendant no.5 has also now made a prayer that she is also entitled for a share along with the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 4 in the suit. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not change the nature of defence in the written statement and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41761 WP No. 7746 of 2021 other parties to the suit will not be put to any hardship in the event, prayer made in the application is allowed. Accordingly, prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a prayer is made to delete paragraph Nos.1 to 8 in the original written statement filed by defendant no.5 and to permit defendant no.5 to incorporate the proposed paragraph nos.1 to 14 in the written statement, which results in permitting defendant no.5 to delete the admissions made by her in the original written statement. The same cannot be allowed. They submit that defendant no.5 has now made a prayer to allot one equal share to her along with the plaintiff and defendants nos.1 to 4 whereas in the original written statement she had not made any claim for allotting her any share. Therefore, the prayer made in the original written statement and the amendment now sought are inconsistent. The trial Court was therefore fully justified in rejecting the application. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition. 6. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiff and defendants nos.1 to 5 are all brothers - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41761 WP No. 7746 of 2021 and sisters. The plaintiff had filed OS No.4531/2013 seeking 1/6th share in the suit schedule property. The petitioner herein is arrayed as defendant no.5 in this suit. Originally, defendant no.5 / petitioner had filed a written statement in O.S.No.4531/2013 admitting the relationship between the parties and she has also stated that plaintiff and defendant no.5 are the married sisters of defendants nos.1 to 4. The marriage of plaintiff and defendant no.5 was performed by their father Rangegowda alias Rangappa. The married daughters do not come within the definition of Hindu joint family. Therefore, the plaintiff has no share in the property. She has stated that at the request of her brothers, namely defendants nos.1 to 4, she has executed a registered release date dated 24.12.2011 and has relinquished her right in the suit schedule property in favour of her brothers namely defendant nos.1 to 4. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the suit. 7. In the proposed amendment, she has now sought to delete para nos.1 to 8 of her written statement and the prayer and add new para nos.1 to 14 and a new prayer. A reading of the proposed amendment would go to show that she - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41761 WP No. 7746 of 2021 has now made a claim for allotting 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties along with plaintiff and defendants nos.1 to 4 and she has also explained as to how the release deed date 24.12.2011 was got executed by defendant nos.1 to 4. According to the respondents herein, the statement made on behalf of the defendant no.5 in the original written statement and the statement made in the proposed amendment are inconsistent. They also have stated that the admissions made by the defendant no.5 in her original written statement is now sought to be deleted, which is not permissible. 8. In the case of BALDEV SINGH & OTHERS VS MANOHAR SINGH & ANOTHER - (2006)6 SCC 498, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the defendant is entitled to raise inconsistent defences in his written statement. Although the same is not permissible to be done by plaintiff. 9. In the case of B.K.NARAYANA PILLAI VS PARAMESWARAN PILLAI & ANOTHER - (2000)1 SCC 712, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that though the principles to be followed is applicable for amendment of plaint as well as written statement equally, since the prejudice that is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41761 WP No. 7746 of 2021 likely to be caused is less in case of amendment of written statement, courts are required to be more liberal in permitting such amendments. 10. In LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - 2022 SCC OPNLINE SC 1128, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters for the Courts to follow while considering the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and it has been held in the said case that, while dealing with the prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper technical approach and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. In the said case, it is also held that the prayer made for amendment should be normally allowed, if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, and the party seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the parties which confers a right on the other side. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41761 WP No. 7746 of 2021 11. Considering the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, if the proposed amendment is appreciated no prejudice would be caused to other side. Therefore, I am of the opinion that without permitting defendant no.5 to delete para nos.1 to 8 including the prayer found in the original written statement filed by her, if the proposed amendment sought by her is permitted to be brought on record as additional paragraphs and additional prayer in the written statement filed by her, the same would serve the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, the following ORDER (i) Writ petition is partly allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 29.03.2021 passed on I.A.No.XII in O.S.No.4531/2013 by the Court of XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside and consequently the prayer made in I.A.No.XII is partly allowed. (iii) The proposed amendment insofar as it relates to permitting the defendant no.5 to delete paragraph nos.1 to 8 and prayer found in the written statement is rejected and the remaining proposed amendments in the application is granted and the defendant no.5 is permitted to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41761 WP No. 7746 of 2021 incorporate proposed paragraph nos.1 to 14 and the proposed prayer in the written statement as paragraph Nos.9 to 22 and as a additional prayer in the written statement. (iv) Since the suit is of the year 2011, it is needless to state that the trial court shall make endeavours to dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible Pending IAs' if any, does not survive for consideration and are disposed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15