- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9322 WP No. 3573 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3573 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. BASAVANAGANGURU VILLAGE, ABBALAGERE POST, HOLALURU HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST.-577 204 2. KADAMMA W/O MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, NAVILE SHIVAMOGGA-577 204 3. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O. BASAVANAGANGURU VILLAGE ABBALAGERE POST HOLALURU HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST.-577 204. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJU BHAT., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O VIJAYAPPA, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9322 WP No. 3573 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O BOMMANAKATTE VILLAGE AND POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 204 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2026 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT SHIVAMOGGA IN OS NO.11/2025 ON IA NO.XI FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IS HEREBY AS ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendants in O.S.No.11/2025 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Shivamogga, is directed against the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 passed on I.A.No.XI whereby the said application filed by the respondent- plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9322 WP No. 3573 of 2026 petitioners-defendants for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, after conclusion of trial and at the stage of arguments, the plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint, which was contested by the petitioners – defendants and culminated in the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 allowing IA No.XI as hereunder: “Orders on I.A. No.XI filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint. 2. It is stated in the affidavit accompanying the application that the plaintiff is the sister of defendants no. 1 to 3. These defendants have misrepresented facts to the land acquisition authority and received compensation as a result. The plaintiff became aware of this situation in March 2025. Consequently, she submitted an application under Order XXI Rules 97 to 106 of the CPC in Execution Petition No. 59/2021 to have her rights adjudicated. However, the court dismissed this application on the basis that the plaintiff was not a party to the acquisition proceedings and that such an application is not maintainable in an execution petition. The plaintiff now seeks to amend her plaint to include facts - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9322 WP No. 3573 of 2026 pertaining to the land acquisition and the award issued in the land acquisition proceedings. She also intends to insert the prayer in the plaint. If the application is not allowed, the plaintiff will face significant hardship. Therefore, she prayed to allow the application. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant no.1 and 3 has filed objection to the application contending that, the amendment sought by the plaintiff is not maintainable. The application appears to be filed solely to rectify defects in the plaint and to introduce a new cause of action. The amendments proposed exceed the scope of the original plaint and introduce new and inconsistent claims. A registered partition was already executed on 25.06.1993, prior to the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005. Consequently, the plaintiff cannot reopen the partition. Furthermore, the application has been submitted beyond the limitation period. The plaintiff was fully aware of the preliminary and final notifications issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Additionally, the plaintiff was not a party to the acquisition or reference proceedings under LAC No. 57/2001. No reference was made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain any disputes related to land acquisition or the compensation awarded. If the application is allowed, it will alter the scope of the suit and cause significant prejudice to the defendants. Thus, prayed to dismiss the application. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9322 WP No. 3573 of 2026 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 3.1 have perused the materials placed on record. 5. Points that would arise for the consideration are as under: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the proposed amendment is necessary for the adjudication of the case? 2. What Order? 6. My answer to the above said points are as under; Point No.1-In the Affirmative. Point No.2-As per the final order for the following; REASONS 7. Point No.1: This is a suit for partition and separate possession in joint family properties. The plaintiff asserts that defendants number 1 and 3 are her brothers, while defendant number 2 is her sister. The properties in question are ancestral joint family properties. The defendants have failed to disclose about the plaintiff in the land acquisition proceedings. The plaintiff claims entitlement to a one-fourth share of the suit properties. 8. The defendants No.1 to 3, acknowledge the familial relationship with the plaintiff. They concede that one of the family properties was acquired by the government, leading to the initiation of proceedings in LAC No. 22/2021. They contend that a partition was already executed through - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9322 WP No. 3573 of 2026 a registered deed dated 25.06.1993. This partition occurred prior to the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, and thus, it cannot be reopened at this stage. The plaintiff holds no share in the suit property. 9. Now the plaintiff has filed an application seeking permission to amend the plaint. Through the proposed amendment, the plaintiff intends to add averments concerning the acquisition of land, the proceedings related to LAC No.57/2001, the deposit of the compensation amount, and the execution petition. She seeks to claim her portion of the compensation amount deposited in Execution Petition No. 55/2021. Additionally, she wishes to incorporate the amount specified in the award as part of the suit property. 10. The defendants No. 1 and 3 contend that the proposed amendment would alter the fundamental nature of the suit. They assert that such an amendment cannot be permitted since a partition was already effected in 1993. 11. This is a suit for partition and separate possession. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiff asserts that one of the family properties was acquired by the government, and compensation has been deposited in relation to that acquisition. She was not awarded anything concerning the compensation proceedings. Consequently, she became aware of the acquisition proceedings and filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97, in the execution - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9322 WP No. 3573 of 2026 petition, seeking her entitlement to the compensation amount. However, this application has been rejected, prompting the plaintiff to include this fact in the plaint. 12. A perusal of the plaint indicates that there are already assertions regarding LAC No.22/2021 and execution petition No.55/2020. The plaintiff claims that the award passed in the land acquisition proceedings constitutes joint family property, and she possesses a legitimate share in the compensation amount. Whether a partition was effected in 1993, and whether the claim regarding the award amount is maintainable in the partition suit, cannot be determined at this stage of litigation. This matter necessitates the recording of evidence and a comprehensive trial. The proposed amendment is just and necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. If the application is denied, it may lead to a multiplicity of proceedings. The proposed amendment will not alter the nature of the suit. Furthermore, the trial has not yet commenced. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, there are grounds to allow the application. Accordingly, I proceed to answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative. 13. Point No.2: In view of findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER IA No.XI filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is hereby allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9322 WP No. 3573 of 2026 The plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint. The plaintiff shall carry out amendment and file amended plaint.” 4. Upon reconsideration, re-evaluation and re- appreciation of the entire material on record, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court permitting pre-trial amendment sought for by the plaintiff is in conformity / consonance with the well settled principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu & another – AIR 2002 SC 3369, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited – AIR 2022 SC 4256, L.C. Hanumanthappa Vs. H.B. Shivakumar – (2016) 1 SCC 332 and, Dinesh Goyal @ pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. - 2024 INSC 726 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Dharwad Bench in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr., Vs. Bandenawaz and Ors – W.P.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025. 5. Under these circumstances and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid case, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing application – I.A.No.XI does not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9322 WP No. 3573 of 2026 suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 6. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) It is however made clear that all questions regarding maintainability, jurisdiction, limitation, etc., are kept / left open to be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including limitation. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to file appropriate I.A., if permissible, in accordance with law. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9322 WP No. 3573 of 2026 (v) If petitioners files such an application, the Trial Court shall provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to file objections to the said application and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24