- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9454 WP No. 38423 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.38423 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.RUDRESH RAJU G S/O LATE GOVINDARAJU.B., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.54, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, SAMPIGE LAYOUT, GOVINDARAJANAGAR WARD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H N VENKATESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.YASHODAMMA W/O SRI KODANDARAMA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.389, ITC ROAD, SUBBAYYANAPALYA, M.S.NAGARA POST, BENGALURU - 560 033. 2. SMT. R.SARASWATHAMMA D/O LATE SRI B.RAMAIAH, W/O LATE SRI GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.300/1, JALAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU - 560 013. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHAHSIKUMAR FOR SRI. MAHESH B J., ADVOCATES) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-(I) CALL FOR RECORDS Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9454 WP No. 38423 of 2025 OF O.S. NO. 5288/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-18), BENGALURU, INCLUDING THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A. NO. 4, DTD. 26-11- 2025 AND PERUSE THE SAME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.5288/2023 is directed against the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.4, whereby the said application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was allowed by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that in the first instance, respondent No.1 filed the aforesaid suit against respondent No.2 for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. Subsequently, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9454 WP No. 38423 of 2025 petitioner got himself impleaded as defendant No.2 and filed his written statement, which prompted respondent No.1 to file the instant application i.e., I.A.No.4 seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings and prayers. 4. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application as hereunder. “ORDERS ON IA No.4 Plaintiff has filed this application under Order VI Rule 17 R/w. Section 151 CPC praying to permit her to amend the plaint by incorporating the proposed amendment in the plaint and in the prayer column in the interest of justice and equity. 2. In the accompanying affidavit it is sworn to by the plaintiff that she has filed this suit for specific performance against defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 filed an to implead him as additional defendant. Hence the said application came to be allowed. The main contention of the defendant No.2 is that 1st defendant executed a registered Gift Deed dated 31-01-2020, accordingly got transferred khatha and other relevant documents to his name and claiming to be the owner of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 took contrary stand against the statement of defendant No.2 contending that during the life time of her father Sri B. Ramaiah executed Will dated 12-02- 2001 by bequeathing the schedule property to her and defendant No.1 further contended that defendant No.2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9454 WP No. 38423 of 2025 by playing fraud on her got created the Gift Deed. Both the defendants took different stand in their separate written statements. Defendants are taking different stand for the first time while filing the written statement. Under these circumstances, it is very much necessary to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint. 3. The proposed amendment is to add paragraph in the plaint with respect to the execution of registered Gift Deed dated 31-01-2020 so also with respect to alleged Will dated 12-02-2001 got executed by playing fraud on her, got created the said Gift Deed and in the prayer column to declare the said Will is not binding on the plaintiff. 4. Inter-alia, defendant No.2 has filed objection to the said application stating that on the ground of due diligence the application needs to be rejected out rightly and that the suit has been filed by plaintiff on 18-08-2023, Gift Deed has been disputed by the plaintiff on 31-01-2020 and in the said Gift Deed there is reflection of registered Will executed by B.Ramaiah bequeathing the suit property in favour of his daughter Smt. R.Saraswathamma defendant No.1 on 12-02-2001 which means that these documents dates back to filing of the suit. The above suit has been filed by the plaintiff for specific performance. When such a suit is filed, plaintiff need to verify the encumbrance relating to the subject matter of the property as on the date of filing of the suit, he has to implead the persons in whose favour encumbrance has been created till the date of filing of the suit. 5. Admittedly, defendant No.1 having acquired the suit property through registered Will dated 12-02-2001, conveyed the same in favour of her son defendant No.2 through registered Gift Deed dated 31-01-2020 and said Gift Deed relate to the Will dated 12-02-2001. Hence it is very much clear that plaintiff had the knowledge of gift deed and also registered Will. As on the date of filing of the suit, khatha stand in the name - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9454 WP No. 38423 of 2025 of defendant No.2 which was transferred during February-2020 which means that it was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, who deliberately not produced encumbrance certificate and khatha certificate relating to the suit property at the time of filing of the suit. Plaintiff in collusion with defendant No.1, who by that time not in good terms with defendant No.2 taking advantage of which hatched up the scheme for getting collusive decree and to take over the property. This defendant is the absolute owner who made an application to implead him as party. Thus denying the contents taken in the application, this defendant has sought for rejection of the application 6. Heard. Perused the application, objection and materials on records. 7. On the basis of rival contentions, following points arise for consideration; i) Whether plaint need to be amended as sought in the application? ii) If so, what order ? 8. For the reasons assigned below, the above points are answered as follows; POINT No.1 :: In the Affirmative POINT No.2 :: As per final order for the following: REASONS 9. POINT NO-1 :: By filing present application plaintiff intends to get the plaint amended with respect to the alleged execution of Gift Deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 dated 31-01-2020 and that relief of declaration in the prayer column that Will dated 12-02-2001 is not binding on the plaintiff. As rightly pointed out by the defendant No.2 that at the time of filing of this suit, the registry has raised objection of non production of original sale agreement dated 01-06- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9454 WP No. 38423 of 2025 2002, khatha / property extract / EC not filed for identification of the property. The alleged deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of her son defendant No.2 dated 31-01-2020 was executed much prior to the filing of the present suit. When the office has specifically raised objection of non production of the said documents, plaintiff should have been alert, must have gone through the said documents that could reflect the execution of the said Gift Deed with respect to suit property in favour of defendant No.2. Plaintiff has not taken care of these things to show that he was not enough diligent in exercising his rights and discharging his duties properly. Moreover, in his plaint at paragraph No.12 plaintiff has specifically stated that defendant issued reply notice dated 17-03-2020 by disputing the agreement and she claims that there is a Will left by deceased B.Ramaiah and also it is stated that as per Gift Deed executed by defendant to one Sri Rudresh Raju.G impleaded as defendant No.2 herein, he became the owner of the suit schedule property. When defendant has specifically stated all these aspects in her reply to the plaintiff, plaintiff would have become vigilant in seeking remedy for the same. But he has not done so. He has not assigned any justifiable reasons as to what prevented him to make necessary correction to the plaint at least even after coming to know the documents sought by the registry for proceeding with the suit. But however, after going through all such objection raised by defendant No.2, proper steps not taken by the plaintiff at the threshold at the time of filing of the suit, etc., yet it. It appears at this stage that the stage in the suit is that evidence of the plaintiff is not yet commenced. The defendants No.1 and 2 are none other than mother and son and defendant No.1 being mother is said to have executed gift deed in favour of her son defendant No.2 on the strength of the Will dated 12-02-2001. Ultimately, the purpose is to secure justice and to dispose of the case on merits. Ultimately, the burden is upon the plaintiff who has approached the court seeking certain reliefs to prove - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9454 WP No. 38423 of 2025 the contentions taken in in the plaint with convincing materials. 10. At this stage, having gone through the application, objection and materials on record, nature of the suit, it appears at this stage that, by imposing suitable costs if plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint, it would meet the ends of justice. If the application is allowed defendants will not be put to hardship and loss on the other hand, it is the plaintiff subjected to inconvenience and hardship beside being multiplicity of proceedings. Having regard to the stage of the suit and facts and circumstances of the case, present application deserves to be allowed by imposing suitable costs. Hence Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. 11. POINT NO.2:: In view of my answer to Point No.1. I proceed to pass the following: ORDER IA No.4 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 R/w. Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is hereby allowed on cost of Rs.2,000/-. Subject to payment of costs, plaintiff is permitted to carryout amendment in plaint and to furnish amended plaint.” 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that the proposed amendment was relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties, especially when the proposed amendment was sought for prior to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9454 WP No. 38423 of 2025 commencement of trial. The trial Court has also came to the correct conclusion that the proposed amendment does not change or alter the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action and the same was sought to be incorporated in view of the specific stance/stand taken by the petitioner in the written statement after his impleadment. 6. Under these circumstances, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Ors. – AIR 2002 SC 3369; LC Hanumanthappa Vs. HB Shivakumar - AIR 2015 SC 3364; Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors -– AIR 2022 SC 4256 and Dinesh Goyal @ pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & Ors - 2024 INSC 726 and also the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Rafi & Another Vs. Bandenawaz & others – W.P.No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025 (Dharwad Bench), I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9454 WP No. 38423 of 2025 suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present petition except directing that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of the application and by leaving open all contentions including contention regarding limitation to be kept open to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. 7. 7. Under these circumstances and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing application – I.A.No.IV does not 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 case. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9454 WP No. 38423 of 2025 ORDER (i) The petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) It is made clear that the proposed amendment as allowed by the Trial Court shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned / considered from 21.01.2025 i.e., from the date on which I.A.No.IV was filed. (iii) The liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. (iv) All rival contentions including the issue regarding limitation is kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE PB/SRL List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1