- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52074 RFA No. 1368 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1368 OF 2021 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI R RAGHU SON OF LATE PC.RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT VENKATAGIRIKOTE (VILL AND POST) DEVANAHALLI (TQ) BENGALURU RURAL (DISTRICT) 562164. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHREERAM TIMMAPPA NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT MALLIKA C RAO WIFE OF LATE CHANDRAKANATH RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.261 1ST MAIN DOLLARS COLONY, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 094. 2. K. SANDESH KUMAR S/O B.H KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.520, ‘JANANI’ VIII CROSS, MCEHS LAYOUT, DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 077. REP. BY HIS P.A.HOLDER SRI. B.H. KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. LATE HENJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K S CHANDRAHASA AND SRI. NAVEEN SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52074 RFA No. 1368 of 2021 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.10.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO.4586/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.No.4586/2012 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.10.2021 passed by the X Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-26), whereby the said suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff against the respondent No.1 – defendant for permanent injunction 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 appellant was plaintiff in the aforesaid suit filed by him against the respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 and N.T.I (National Technological Institutions) Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru, for permanent injunction in relation to suit schedule - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52074 RFA No. 1368 of 2021 immovable property. The respondent No.1 – defendant entered appearance and filed her 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 plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference? (3) What order or decree ?” 3. The Plaintiff examined his GPA holder as PW-1 and marked documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P13, while the defendant No.1 examined herself as DW-1 and Exs.D1 to D31 were marked by her. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dismissing his suit, the plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.2 got himself impleaded claiming he had purchased the property from respondent No.1- defendant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52074 RFA No. 1368 of 2021 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the present appeal, the appellant has 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. 7. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal: (i) Whether the application-I.A.2/2025 filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in the present appeal? Re-Point No.(i):- 8. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that as per the impugned judgment and decree, the suit of the appellant – - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52074 RFA No. 1368 of 2021 plaintiff was dismissed. As stated supra, the suit of the plaintiff was one for bare injunction simpliciter 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 proposed amendment sought for in the application shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned and considered from the date of the aforesaid amendment application in the light of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52074 RFA No. 1368 of 2021 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 appellant – plaintiff deserves to be allowed. 8.1. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in favour of the appellant by allowing I.A.2/2025. Re-Point No.(ii):- 9. 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52074 RFA No. 1368 of 2021 9.1 As stated earlier, the plaintiff having initially filed a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter 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. 9.2 Accordingly, Point No.(ii) is also answered in favour of the appellant. 10. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 04.10.2021 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.4586/2012 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the suit afresh in accordance with law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52074 RFA No. 1368 of 2021 (iv) IA No.2/2025 is hereby allowed and the amendment sought for by the appellant-plaintiff 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) The Trial Court is directed to permit the appellant – plaintiff to amend the plaint by incorporating the amendment as per I.A.No.2/2025 and also implead respondent No.2 as defendant No.2 to the suit and file amended plaint. (vi) 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., (vii) Liberty is also received in favour of all parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence / additional evidence in support of their respective claims. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52074 RFA No. 1368 of 2021 (viii) The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 19.01.2026 without awaiting further notice from the Trial Court (ix) 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 19.01.2026. (x) 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 SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49