- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1391 WP No. 223628 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.223628 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. KASHIRAO S/O. CHANDRA RAO BHANJI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS A) SMT. MALLAMMA W/O KASHIRAO BHANJI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, B) ASHWINI D/O KASHIRAO BHANJI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, C) SUNIL KUMAR S/O KASHIRAO BHANJI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, D) RASHMI W/O DAYANAND BHANJI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, E) ANVIT D/O DAYANAND BHANJI, AGED ABOUT 02 YEARS, OCC: NIL(MINOR), U/G PROPOSED LR NO.1(D) (ALL R/O UDGI VILLAGE, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI) 2. DEVINDRAPPA S/O CHANDRA RAO BHANJI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. UDGI, TQ. SEDAM, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1391 WP No. 223628 of 2020 DIST. KALABURAGI. 3. LOKANNA S/O CHANDRA RAO BHANJI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. UDGI, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G. G. CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A) VENKATREDDY S/O AYALREDDY, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT. PADMAMMA W/O. LATE VENKATREDDY, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRI , R/O. SEDAM, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI. B) RAMACHANDRAREDDY S/O LATE VENKATREDDY AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. SEDAM, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI. C) SMT. SHOBHA W/O VENKATREDDY KANALKAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HANIKUNI, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR. D) NARENDRAREDDY S/O LATE VENKATREDDY AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRI. & BUSINESS, R/O. SEDAM, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE SERVED ON R1 (A) TO R1(D)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ON - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1391 WP No. 223628 of 2020 I.A.NO.IV DATED 02.04.2019, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SEDAM IN O.S.NO.20/2013, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The defendants in O.S.No.20/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sedam are before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 02.04.2019 by which an application filed by the plaintiff (I.A.No.IV) under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was allowed. 2. The suit in O.S.No.20/2013 was filed for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in respect of land bearing Sy.No.822 of Sedam Taluk measuring 27 acres 19 guntas. 3. The plaintiff now deceased, claimed that his father was the absolute owner of the suit property and was in possession of it until he died on 08.06.2000. The plaintiff, now deceased, alleged that defendant Nos.1 to 3 were interfering with his possession they had no manner of right, title or interest therein. He alleged that the defendants disclosed that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1391 WP No. 223628 of 2020 they had purchased the suit property in terms of sale-deeds that were registered as document Nos.113/2000-2001, 114/2000-2001 and 115/2000-2001. The deceased plaintiff obtained copies of the documents and contended that he was not a party to the sale-deeds and therefore was not bound by them. He therefore sought for a declaration that sale deeds referred to above do not bind his interest and sought for perpetual injunction. 4. The suit was contested by defendant No.1 who contended that they have purchased the suit property from the father of plaintiff and that they were placed in possession of the suit property. He therefore claimed that the sale-deeds were binding upon the plaintiff also. He contended that he and others had filed a suit in O.S.No.64/2007 for perpetual injunction and that the said suit was decreed against the plaintiff and his son. Therefore, he contended that the present suit was not maintainable. 5. (i) Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed issues and set down the case for trial. After issues were framed, the suit was set down for evidence. At that stage, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1391 WP No. 223628 of 2020 plaintiff filed an application for amendment of plaint to incorporate an additional relief of recovery of possession. In the affidavit accompanying the application, plaintiff claimed that after the decree of suit in O.S.No.64/2007, the defendants with the help of police dispossessed him in the 3rd week of April 2012. Therefore, he contended that he was entitled to recover the possession of suit property. (ii) The application was contested by the defendants who claimed that the possession of the property was always with defendants and therefore the defendants had raised a contention in their written statement that the suit without seeking the relief of possession was not maintainable. They contended that the suit filed by them in O.S.No.64/2007 was decreed which made it more than evident that they were in possession of the suit property. Therefore, they contended that the application filed by the plaintiff to amend the plaint at a belated stage of the proceedings, is not maintainable. 6. The Trial Court after considering the application as well as the objections filed to the application held that the plaintiff had categorically stated in the application that he was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1391 WP No. 223628 of 2020 dispossessed from the suit property during the pendency of W.P.No.82020/2010 and therefore it was upon him to prove that he was dispossessed from the suit property. The trial Court held that since the trial in the suit had not begun and the plaintiff had sought for declaration of title, the relief of recovery of possession was necessary in view of the claim of plaintiff that he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. Consequently, it allowed the application in terms of the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for defendants submitted that the plaintiff has not produced any material to justify that he was dispossessed from suit property in the third week of April 2012, during the pendency of W.P.No.82020/2010. He also contended that since suit was initially filed for declaration and perpetual injunction without seeking the relief of possession, the plaintiff has attempted to overcome the defect by filing the instant application. He also contends the suit was set down for evidence and therefore the plaintiff could not have sought for amendment of the pleadings after the issues were framed in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1391 WP No. 223628 of 2020 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The suit was filed for declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of defendants was not binding upon him and for perpetual injunction. When the suit was set down for evidence, the plaintiff claimed that he was dispossessed from the property during the 3rd week of April 2012 and therefore it was necessary for him to seek for relief of recovery of possession. He also contended that the defendants had dispossessed him taking shelter under the decree passed in O.S.No.64/2007 and the consequent entries made in the revenue records. The question whether the additional relief sought for by the petitioner was genuine or not cannot be gone into by the Trial Court while considering the application. This is a pure question of fact that the plaintiff has to establish before the Trial Court and therefore the trial Court was justified in allowing the application, more particularly when the plaintiff pleaded that he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in allowing the application warranting interference. However, it is made clear that it is for the plaintiff to establish that he was - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1391 WP No. 223628 of 2020 dispossessed from the suit property during the 3rd week of April 2012. The writ petition therefore lacks merit and is dismissed but it is subject to the observations made above. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE SN LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38 CT:SI