- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53580 WP No. 16789 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 16789 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. Y N KARIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 1(A) MRS.Y.K.YASHODA, W/O LATE, Y.N.KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 1(B) MRS.Y.K.RENU, D/O LATE, Y.N.KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 1(C) MRS.Y.K.LAXMI, D/O LATE, Y.N.KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 1(D) MR.Y.K.NEELESH, S/O LATE, Y.N.KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT MTTLUHOLE ROAD, SHIBARA CIRCLE, HARIHARA - 577 601. 2. MR.Y.N.MALLINATHA, S/O LATE Y.NEELAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, AUTOMOBILE DEALER, PRASHANTH AUTOMOBILE, METTILUHOLE ROAD, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53580 WP No. 16789 of 2021 HARIHARA TOWN - 577 601. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE P1(A) TO (D)) AND: 1. SMT. YAMUNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT.RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE Y.SANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD, 2. MR.Y.SURENDRA, S/O LATE Y.SANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, MANSON, 3. MR.Y.S.RAVIKUMAR, S/O LATE Y.SANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF BEEDA SHOP, 4. SMT.Y.PADMASHREE, D/O LATE Y.SANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD, 5. MR.Y.S.GOPINATHA, S/O LATE Y.SANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, MANSON, 6. KUM.Y.S.SHILPA, D/O LATE Y.SANGAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53580 WP No. 16789 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.254, G DIVISION, DODDIBEEDI, HARIHARA TOWN - 577 601. 7. SMT.Y.NINGAMMA, SINCE DEAD NO LRS. 8. SMT.MALLAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, D/O LATE Y.NEELAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD WORK, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, B BLOCK, VIDYANAGAR, HARIHARA TOWN - 577 601. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.S.RAVI., SENIOR COUNSEL ADVOCATE FOR; SRI.AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE R-1 TO R-6; SRI.D.P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-8; V/O DATED 18.11.2025 DECEASED R-7 IS D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.18.8.2021 PASSED IN F.D.P.NO.08/2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HARIHARA ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 18.08.2021 passed on I.A.No.5 in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53580 WP No. 16789 of 2021 FDP.No.8/2014 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Harihara, Davanagere District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Decree Holders have filed I.A.No.5 in FDP.No.8/2014 pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Harihara, Davanagere District under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to amend the petition schedule property. The said application was opposed by the contesting judgment debtors by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed I.A.No.5 and being aggrieved by the same, the contesting judgment debtors are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the description of the suit schedule property was changed during the pendency of the suit itself. However, no steps were taken by the plaintiffs to amend the plaint schedule property. Without amending the preliminary decree passed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53580 WP No. 16789 of 2021 in O.S.No.74/2002, no application could have been entertained by the Trial Court to amend the schedule of the petition filed in FDP.No.8/2014. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submits that description of the suit schedule property including the survey number was changed because of the podi and durasti of the said lands. Even the extent of the land has been reduced. It is under these circumstances, necessary application to amend the petition schedule properties was filed which has been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Suit in O.S.No.74/2002 was filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. It appears that the Trial Court had initially dismissed the suit and the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.74/2002 was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53580 WP No. 16789 of 2021 set aside by this Court in RFA No.1128/2005 and consequently, the suit in O.S.No.74/2002 was decreed and it was held that plaintiff No.2 and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for 1/4th share each with 1/6th out of 1/4th share in A-schedule properties. Plaintiff Nos.1 & 3 and defendant No.3 were held to be entitled for 1/6th out of 1/4th share in A-Schedule property. Prayer made in respect of B, C, D and E schedule properties was rejected. 7. Subsequently, the decree holders have initiated final decree proceedings in FDP.No.8/2014 before the Trial Court and in the said proceedings, I.A.No.5 was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to permit the petitioners/decree holders to amend the schedule of the petition in final decree proceedings. In the affidavit which is filed in support of the application, it is stated that the earlier survey numbers and measurements were changed due to podi and durasti of the suit schedule properties. It is under the said circumstances, application being filed to permit the petitioners to amend the schedule - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53580 WP No. 16789 of 2021 of the petition in the final decree proceeding. The Trial Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter has rightly allowed I.A.No.5. The proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action of the suit. The final decree proceeding is a continuation of the suit and therefore, it is not necessary to amend the preliminary decree. Since the proposed amendment is only consequent to the podi and durasti of the lands which are subject matter of the preliminary decree, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have repeatedly held that the Court should be liberal while considering the applications for amendment of the plaint, so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing I.A.No.5 in FDP.No.8/2014, I do not find any good reasons to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53580 WP No. 16789 of 2021 9. Pending I.A's, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12