- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49238 RFA No. 1950 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1950 OF 2025 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO 156, RAMOHALLI VILLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 060 2. SRI B. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. SMT. MUNILAKSHMI D/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO 23/9, 3RD STAGE MARUTHI NAGAR, ULLALU BANGALORE - 560 056 4. SRI M.MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE M.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO 14, SUBEDHAR CHATRAM ROAD YASHWANTHPURA BANGALORE - 560 022 5. SMT. YASHODA D/O MUNIYAPPA @ Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49238 RFA No. 1950 of 2025 CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO 135, 1ST CROSS V. NAGENAHALLI YELLAMMADEVI TEMPLE R.T. NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 032 6. SMT. PARVATHI D/O MUNIYAPPA @ CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO 135, 1ST CROSS V. NAGENAHALLI YELLAMMADEVI TEMPLE R.T.NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 032 7. SRI. BALA M. S/O MUNIYAPPA @ CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO, 135, 2ND MAIN, 8TH CROSS VALMIKINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 026. 8. SRI HEMANTHA S/O MUNIYAPPA @ CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO 135, 1ST CROSS V.NAGENAHALLI YELLAMMADEVI TEMPLE R.T.NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 032 ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR SPA HOLDER SRI M. ANJINI S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49238 RFA No. 1950 of 2025 R/AT NO 154, 1ST CROSS V. NAGENAHALLI YELLAMMADEVI TEMPLE R.T. NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 032 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NARASAMMA W/O M. RAMAKRSIHNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O N.MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. SMT. G.R. SHOBHA W/O.MUNIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 4. SMT. G.R. YASHODHA W/O A. GOPIRAJ AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 5. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO 5/1, GUNDAPPA LAYOUT MAIN ROAD MANJUNATHA LAYOUT 5TH CROSS NAGASHETTIHALLI BANGALORE - 560 094 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINSON M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49238 RFA No. 1950 of 2025 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2025 PASSED IN OS.NO.717/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.717/2019 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.06.2025 passed by the XXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the appellants – plaintiffs against the respondents – defendants for recovery of possession and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property was dismissed by the Trial Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:- The appellants were plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit filed by them against the respondents – defendants for recovery of possession and other reliefs in relation to suit schedule immovable - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49238 RFA No. 1950 of 2025 property. The respondents filed their written statement and contested the suit and sought for its dismissal in pursuance of which, the Trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the joint owners of the suit schedule properties ? (2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule premises is given on rent to the defendants on 4.1.2012 on monthly rent of Rs.5,00,000/- per month and deposit of security amount of Rs.50,000/- ? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves defendants are in arrears of rent of Rs.1,80,000/ from February 2015 to October 2018 ? (4) Whether the plaintiff proves that he issued the legal notice to the defendant on 03.11.2018 was refused by the defendants ? (5) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are also liable for damages of Rs.1,90,000/- ? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for ? (7) What order or decree ?” 3. The Plaintiffs examined their SPA holder as PW-1 and marked documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P12, while the defendants examined 1st defendant as DW-1 and Exs.D1 to D6 were marked by them. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49238 RFA No. 1950 of 2025 decree dismissing their suit, the plaintiffs are before this Court by way of the present appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the present appeal, the appellants have filed an application I.A.2/2025 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating the relief of declaration of title and consequential recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the respondents – defendants together with corresponding pleadings in this regard. The said application has been opposed by the respondents. 6. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal: (i) Whether the application-I.A.2/2025 filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in the present appeal? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49238 RFA No. 1950 of 2025 Re-Point No.(i):- 7. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that as per the impugned judgment and decree, the suit of the appellants – plaintiffs was dismissed. As stated supra, the suit of the plaintiffs was one for recovery of possession without seeking declaration of title. By way of the proposed amendment as sought for in I.A.2/2025, by incorporating additional prayers for declaration and consequential relief of possession of the suit schedule property as well as corresponding pleadings in this regard. Though the said application is opposed by the respondents, a perusal of the proposed amendment will clearly indicate that the same is necessary and essential for effective and complete adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. So also, the proposed amendment cannot be said to be malafide in nature nor would it change or alter the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action. Further, no prejudice can be said to be caused to the respondents if the amendment was allowed especially when the respondents would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and their interest / defences can be adequately and sufficiently safeguarded by directing that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49238 RFA No. 1950 of 2025 proposed amendment sought for in the application shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned and consider from the date of the aforesaid amendment application in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in several judgments including the judgment in the cases of Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu – AIR 2002 SC 3369 and L.C.Hanumanthappa vs. H.B.Shivakumar – AIR 2015 SC 3364, wherein amendment was permitted subject to the said conditions and by leaving open the questions / issue of limitation to be decided by the Trial Court afresh in accordance with law. It is also pertinent to note that having regard to the principles governing amendment of pleadings as held by the Apex Court and this Court in various judgments including the cases of Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors – AIR 2022 SC 4256, in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, the aforesaid application-I.A.2/2025 for amendment of the plaint filed by the appellants – plaintiffs deserves to be allowed. 7.1. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in favour of the appellants by allowing I.A.2/2025. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49238 RFA No. 1950 of 2025 Re-Point No.2:- 8. The next question that arises for consideration is with regard to the procedure to be followed by this Court pursuant to allowing the application referred to supra. 8.1 As stated earlier, the plaintiffs having initially filed a suit for recovery of possession without seeking declaration, the same has now been permitted to be amended and converted into a suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession and other reliefs by virtue of allowing the aforesaid application. Under these circumstances, it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the suit afresh in accordance with law. 8.2 Accordingly, Point No.(ii) is also answered in favour of the appellants. 9. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49238 RFA No. 1950 of 2025 (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.06.2025 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.717/2019 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the suit afresh in accordance with law. (iv) IA No.2/2025 is hereby allowed and the amendment sought for by the appellants-plaintiffs in the application is hereby allowed, subject to the condition that the amendment sought for in the application shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of filing the application and the question of limitation is kept open to be decided by the trial Court. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents- defendants to file written statement / additional written statement to the plaint / amended plaint and take up all defences including limitation etc., (vi) Liberty is also received in favour of all parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence / additional evidence in support of their respective claims. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49238 RFA No. 1950 of 2025 (vii) The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 12.01.2026 without awaiting further notice from the Trial Court (viii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one year from 12.01.2026. (ix) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including limitation etc., are kept open to be decided by the trial court and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE YKL/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15