- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30077 WP No. 27726 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 27726 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI C. KRISHNAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE C KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS 2. SRI GANGADHAR H.K., S/O LATE C.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 3. SRI AMBARISH K., S/O LATE C.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK NOW YELAHANKA TALUK BENGLAURU -562 157 4. SMT. MUNIVENATAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 5. SRI MUNIVENKATASWAMAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKANNANAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 6. SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE CHIKKANANJAPPA Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30077 WP No. 27726 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 7. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 8. SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE CHIKKANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS PETITIONER NO.4 TO 8 ARE R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBI BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI N.RAMESH S/O NARAYANADAS AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO. 33, 11TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM BENGALORE -560 003 2. SMT. KAMINI R. RAMNANI W/O SRI N.RAMESH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO. 4, 3RD FLOOR A G S PLAZA, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE -560 032 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHYAMSUNDER, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30077 WP No. 27726 of 2025 18/08/2025 ON IA NO. 15 FILED UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI AS PER ANNEXURE A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTIALLY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 18.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.162/2011 by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners to frame additional issues, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The trial Court has framed as many as 10 issues on 14.03.2014. The petitioners have come up with the instant application on 04.03.2025 for framing of additional issues which are as follows: “1. Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that the company was acquiring lands in and around Hosahalli to develop the same for commercial purpose and the plaintiffs and their mother approached the company offering - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30077 WP No. 27726 of 2025 to sell the suit schedule property and company could not have purchased the agricultural land and as such they entered in to an agreement of sale dated 30.07.1997? 2. Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that the GPA was executed in favour of first defendant consciously after receiving full sale consideration and plaintiff cannot challenge the sale deeds in favour of the 2nd defendant?” The trial Court by order impugned had dismissed the application. 3. The trial Court while dismissing the application has observed that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of suit property by virtue of inheritance and to declare general power of attorney and sale deeds in respect to the suit property are not binding on them and for the relief of permanent injunction. The court observed that the proposed issues caste burden on defendant Nos.1 and 2 to state that they have acquired land and company could not have purchased the property, they have entered into agreement and they have to prove that after receiving of full consideration, general power of attorney was executed in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30077 WP No. 27726 of 2025 favour of defendant No.1 and plaintiffs cannot challenge the sale deeds. Accordingly the court felt that framing of these additional issues are not required. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court at any point of time can frame the issues and the reason that is given by the trial court is not correct and the additional issues what the petitioners have sought are not covered by the issues already framed. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple and another Vs Meenakshi Ammal and others1. He relied on paragraph Nos.16(1) and 16(2) which reads thus: “16.1. Firstly, Section 116 of the Evidence Act bars the Lessee/Licensee from constructing if not concocting a challenge vis-à-vis the title of the Lessor/Licensor, if it is the latter who has put the former in possession of the demised/licensed premises. In the case in hand, the first lease was executed by Shri Sethurama Chettiar and the renewal or the succeeding lease was between the Trust through its President, Shri Sethurama Chettiar, on the one hand, and the Tenants on the other. The Tenants, therefore, stood legally impeded and foreclosed from assailing the title of 1 (2015) 3 SCC 624 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30077 WP No. 27726 of 2025 the Trust, as has been correctly concluded by the Trial Court, even though a specific Issue had not been struck in this context in O.S.5/78. There is no gainsaying that where parties are aware of the rival cases the failure to formally formulate an Issue fades into insignificance, especially when it is prominently present in connected matters and extensive evidence has been recorded on it without demur. 16.2. Secondly, on a proper perusal of the plaint, it ought to have been palpably evident that the Plaintiff/Tenant in O.S.5/78 feared dispossession from the demised premises because of what they considered to be an illegal transfer; but since all the Defendants had averred in their Written Statement that they had no intention of doing so, the suit ought not to have been dismissed but ought to have been decreed without more ado solely so far as the prayer of injunction was concerned. But, in the Trial Court the title to the leased land had become the fulcrum of the fight, owing to the pleadings of the Tenant in which it had repeatedly and steadfastly challenged the title of the Trust as well as the Transferees. The Tenant should not be permitted to approbate and reprobate, as per its whim or convenience, by disowning or abandoning a controversy it has sought to have adjudicated.” 6. It is submitted by the Senior Counsel that the Court has rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the evidence is let in and 10 issues - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30077 WP No. 27726 of 2025 were already framed. According to the trial court, the proposed issues by casting burden upon the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not at all necessary in this case. Considering this particular observation by the trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this petition. However, the parties are not permitted to lead any further evidence and basing on the evidence available on record, the trial Court shall give finding on these two additional issues. Accordingly, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. ii. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. iii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0