- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51895 WP No. 27252 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 27252 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: RATHNAVATHI B SHETTY AGED 75 YEARS D/O LATE SANKAYYA SHETTY R/AT PAREEKA MELMANE ATHRADY VILLAGE POST ATHRADY - 576 119 UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT REP. GPA HOLDER VARDVEERA B.P AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O RATHNAVATHI SHETTY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA U, ADV.) AND: 1. GULABI SHETTY AGED 94 YEARS W/O LATE SANKAYYA SHETTY. 2. GIRIJA S SHETTY AGED 72 YEARS D/O LATE SANKAYYA SHETTY. 3. MANORAMA R SHETTY AGED 65 YEARS D/O LATE SANKAYYA SHETTY. 4. SAIMAKANTHA S SHETTY AGED 62 YEARS D/O LATESANKAYYA SHETTY. 5. NALINI B SHETTY AGED 59 YEARS D/O LATE SANKAYYA SHETTY. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51895 WP No. 27252 of 2019 6. ANASUYA M SHETTY AGED 55 YEARS D/O LATE SANKAYYA SHETTY. RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT PAEEKA MELMANE ATHRADY VILLAGE POST ATHRADY - 576 119 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 7. VASANTHI S SHETTY AGED 69 YEARS D/O LATE P SANKAYYA SHETTY R/AT SHAMMIMULLA CHAWL CHAWL NO.1, ROOM NO.2 H F S ROAD, ANDERI (E) MUMBAI - 400 069 MAHARASHTRA STATE. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DTD: 14.07.2025 PETITION AGAINST R-1 IS ABATED; V/O DTD 12.01.2024 NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-6 IS H/S; SRI AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADV., FOR R-7 - ABSENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 PASSED IN IA NO.XIII IN O.S.NO.444/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AT UFUPI VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Defendant No.2 is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 21.06.2019 passed on IA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51895 WP No. 27252 of 2019 No.13 in OS No.444/2013 by the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge, Udupi. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. OS No.444/2013 is filed by respondent No.7 herein seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and also for consequential relief of declaration that the Release Deed dated 03.03.2010 is an invalid document. In the said suit, contesting defendants have filed written statement and opposed the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of further evidence of defendants, IA No.13 was filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC with a prayer to frame the additional issues. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing of objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected IA No.13 and being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the pleadings found on record, the Trial Court ought to have framed appropriate additional issues even though the proposed additional issues framed are not proper. The Trial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51895 WP No. 27252 of 2019 Court ought to have recast the said additional issues and ought to have framed proper additional issues so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that IA No.13 was filed on behalf of the petitioner herein under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC, with a prayer to frame the following additional issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs admit that the properties allotted to the share of 1st defendant Gulabi Shetty, situated at Muggeri Kelamane, Havanje Village, Udupi Taluk, fully described in the A schedule of the Regd. Partition Deed document No.231/80-81 dated 22nd May 1980 is not included and hence the suit is bad for partial partition. 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction." 6. The written statement which was filed by contesting defendants was amended consequent to order passed on IA No.12 and the proposed amendment that was prayed in IA No.12 reads as under:- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51895 WP No. 27252 of 2019 "10(A) The properties allotted to the share of 1st defendant Gulabi Shetty, fully mentioned in schedule A of the Regd. Partition deed dated 22nd May 1980 situated at Havanje Village, Udupi Taluk, have not been included in the plaint. Hence the suit is bad for partial partition." 7. The application IA No.13 is not supported by the affidavit of the party. In the memorandum of facts, which is filed in support of the prayer made in the application, the applicant has not stated how the property has come to defendant No.1 - Smt. Gulabi Shetty. The Trial Court has observed that defendants have admitted that the suit schedule properties were inherited by Smt. Gulabi Shetty in a family partition among her brothers and sisters. If that is so, it is hit by Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Even if it is presumed that the written statement filed by contesting defendants was amended and a plea was subsequently permitted to be incorporated to the effect that the suit is bad for partial partition, the burden to prove the same will always be on the defendants and the same cannot be shifted on the plaintiff. In the proposed additional issues which are sought to be framed, the burden has been - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51895 WP No. 27252 of 2019 shifted on the plaintiff to prove that her suit is bad for partial partition. 8. It is trite that even in the absence of any relevant issue being framed by the Court, depending upon the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Court can still give findings on the said aspect of the matter. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that defendants are in the habit of filing repeated applications and thereby, unnecessarily dragging the litigation. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in passing the order impugned and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the said order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. It is needless to state that since the suit is of the year 2013, the Trial Court shall make endeavours to dispose off the suit on its merits expeditiously. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39