- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35715 WP No. 32469 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 32469 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SHIVANNA, SON OF LATE BYRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAVENAHALLI VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT - 562 127. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.S. SRIRAJ GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GANGANANJAMMA, WIFE OF LATE BYRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2. SRI. GANGADHARA, SON OF LATE BYRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35715 WP No. 32469 of 2024 3. SRI.B.BASAVARAJU, SON OF LATE BYRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. SMT CHANDRAKALA, WIFE OF LATE CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 5. SRI.B KRISHNAIAH, SON OF LATE BYRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT BASAVENAHALLI VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT -562 127. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.J.S.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 AND R5; SRI.N.SUBBA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.09.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. IX IN O.S.NO. 162/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MAGADI VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35715 WP No. 32469 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: "a. Issue a Writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 passed on IA No.IX in OS No.162/2016 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Magadi vide Annexure-A. b. Issue any other writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. c. And this writ petition may be allowed with cost, in the interest of Justice and Equity." 2. Heard Sri.N.S.Sriraj Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.J.S.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5, Sri.N.Subba Shastry, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.162/2016 filed for partition and separate possession. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit or the claim of the defense of the respondents. In the said suit, the petitioner files an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35715 WP No. 32469 of 2024 application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking omission of a particular suit schedule property i.e., Item No.2. The application so filed comes to be rejected, the rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned Counsel Sri.N.S.Sriraj Gowda appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there are two separate suits filed by the brothers, both for the purpose of seeking partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the very same property is the suit schedule property. Learned counsel would submit that it cannot be a joint family property but it is a self-acquired property of the present petitioner and therefore, it cannot be in the list of joint family property that would be partitioned. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the application is rightly rejected as in the suit for partition, all the joint family properties should be brought in unless is proved otherwise, by way of evidence. The other suits that are pending, the learned counsel would submit that there - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35715 WP No. 32469 of 2024 is an order already clubbing of the suits and the suits are being taken up together. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. 8. The concerned Court rejects the application filed by the petitioner seeking omission of item No.2 in the suit schedule property by the following order: " REASONS 7. POINT NO.1:- It is the urge of the plaintiff that, the item No.2 of the suit schedule property is not joint family property of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5. Due to oversight the said property was incorporated in the plaint schedule at the time of filing of the above suit. Hence, he sought for amendment to delete the item no.2 of the suit schedule property from the plaint schedule. 8. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 to 5 contended that, the item No.2 of the suit schedule property was belonged to late. Byralingaiah @ Byraiah, who is the father-in-law of defendant No.1 and grand- father of plaintiff, defendant No.2, 3 & 5 and husband of the defendant No.4 namely Chandrashekhara. The said property is the joint family property of plaintiff and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35715 WP No. 32469 of 2024 defendant No.1, they are in joint possession & enjoyment of the same. 9. On perusal of the materials placed on record, admittedly it is a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants in respect of suit schedule properties. It is very relevant to note that, as could seen from the plaint pleadings, the plaintiff himself categorically pleaded that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and Hindu undivided joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 herein. On the other hand, the defendants No.1 to 5 contended that, item No.2 of the suit schedule property was originally belongs to one Late. Byralingaiah @ Byraiah, who is the father-in-law of the defendant No.1 and grand-father of the plaintiff, defendant No.2 & 5 and husband of defendant No.4. 10. It is very relevant to note that, it is well settled preposition of Law that, the facts admitted by the parties cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment. In this suit also the plaintiff pleaded that, the item No.2 of the suit schedule property is the ancestral and joint family property of plaintiff and defendant No.1. At this stage the rights of the parties cannot be adjudicated, it needs full pledged trial. If the proposed amendment is allowed as sought in the I.A., certainly the suit of the plaintiff is comes within the purview of partial partition. As per the Hindu Law the partial partition is not maintainable, because in a suit for partition all the family properties and all the necessary parties should be incorporated. Under these facts and circumstances and other materials placed on record, the I.A.No.9 filed by the plaintiff is the devoid of merits. For considering all these reasons, this court answer the Point No.1 in the Negative. 11. POINT NO.2: In view of reasons on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER IA No.IX filed by the plaintiff is hereby rejected on cost of Rs.300/-." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35715 WP No. 32469 of 2024 9. Now all suits are clubbed and being heard together, therefore, the petitioner will have to prove the contention that he is now advancing in the application, or before this Court, that it is not a joint family property, but a self-acquired property. This undoubtedly would require evidence. It is not for this Court to enter into the evidence, as to whether the petitioner is holding the subject property i.e., Item No.2 is a joint family property or a self-acquired property. 10. Finding no merit in the petition, and no error in the order impugned, the petition stands disposed. All contentions remain open to be urged before the concerned Court. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32