- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7278 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B. N. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE BAJANTHRI NALLAPPA 2. SMT. M RAJAMMA W/O SRI B N MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT BETTAHALASUR VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BENGLAUUR - 560 063 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. Y. NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. B. N. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE BAJANTHRI NALLAPPA 2. SMT. SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS D/O LATE PILLAPPA Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022 3. SRI SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE PILLAPPA 4. SRI GOVINDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE PILLAPPA 5. SMT. RADHAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O LATE B N VENKATESHAPPA 6. SRI B V MOHAN KUMAR @ PRUTHMI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE B N VENKATESHAPPA 7. SMT. SUSHEELA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS D/O LATE B N VENAKTESHAPPA 8. DRIVER MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS S/O LATE BAJANTHRI NALLAPPA 9. SMT. AMMAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE BAJANTHRI NALLAPPA ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT BETTAHALASUR VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU - 560 063. 10. SRI M SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022 11. SMT. PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O JAYARAMAIAH RESPONDENTS 10 AND 11 ARE R/AT MYLANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI BENGLURU NORTH TALUK - 560 053. 12. SRI N VENKATESHA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT DODDABETTAHALLI BADAVANE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 053. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KRISHNA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H. JAYAKARA SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R9; V/O DATED 12.02.2025 NOTICE TO R2, TO R8, R10 TO R12 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2021 MADE ON IA FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN OS NO.2209/2006 ON FILE OF THE HONOURABLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANHALLI, ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is by defendant Nos.10 and 11, in O.S. No.2209/2006, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2021 passed therein, by which the application filed by defendant No.9 who is respondent No.9 in this petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC came to be allowed. 2. The above suit is filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein, for relief of partition and separate possession of several items of the suit schedule properties. It appears the plaintiff had sought deletion of item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit schedule properties being land bearing Sy.No.24 measuring 4 acres situated at Papanahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and land bearing Sy.No.259/P27, measuring 30 guntas, situated at Bettahalasoor Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk respectively. 3. Subsequently, defendant No.9 filed application under Order VI Rule 17 on 21.07.2015, seeking relief in respect of aforesaid land bearing Sy.No.24 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022 Sy.No.259/P27, as well as another land in Sy.No.291/4. Objections were filed to the said application by defendants Nos.1 to 3, 10 and 11 primarily contending that defendant No.9 having filed the written statement had not made any claim in respect of the said items of the properties. That even when the plaintiff sought for deletion of item Nos.1 and 4 from the suit schedule property, there was no opposition from the defendant No.9, as such the defendant No.9 is precluded from seeking any counter claim under the circumstances. Besides, the relief of counter claim was also barred by limitation. 4. The trial Court on appreciation of the contentions of the parties by the impugned order dated 19.11.2014 allowed the application filed by the defendant No.9 on payment of cost of Rs.500/-, aggrieved by the same defendant Nos.10 and 11 are before this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of the petition vehemently submits that the trial Court erred in allowing the amendments to the written statement permitting - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022 the defendant No.9 to seek counter claim after lapse of six years from the date of filing of the written statement. He submits issues have been framed, recording of evidence is in progress. That only to protract the proceedings defendant No.9 has sought for amendment which could not have been allowed. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition. 6. Heard perused the records. 7. Suit is one for partition. Item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit schedule properties were originally part of the suit, which were deleted at the instance of the plaintiff. Subsequently, defendant No.9 has sought counter claim in respect of the aforesaid two deleted items of the suit properties, in addition, another item of property has been included. It is settled position of law that a suit for partial partition is not permissible, if the parties are able to establish that the properties subject matter of the suit being the joint family property and that they having pre-existing right/share therein, they are entitled for the share subject to plea of ouster and limitation, if any. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33947 WP No. 7278 of 2022 8. There is no dispute in the instant case that the parties are related to each other. In that view of the matter this Court do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, warranting interference. 9. However, it is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to raise such objections/issues as may be available under law with regard to the counter claim being made by the defendant No.9 during the trial and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 10. With the above observations, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 38 Sl No.: 13