- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29900 WP No. 11056 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 11056 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI GURUMURTHY S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT THOGARIGATTA VILLAGE HADONAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 205 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O MUNISHAMAPPA D/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT SUNNAGHATTANAHALLI VILLAGE, THUBUGERE HOBLI AND POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUK- 561 205 2. SRI. YELLAMMA W/O LATE PAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 4. SRI. DODDA YELLAPPA S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 5. SRI. CHIKKA YELLAPPA S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29900 WP No. 11056 of 2026 6. SMT. ANJINAMMA W/O BUDDAPPA D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 7. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O MUNIRAJAPPA D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT HARALURU NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK 8. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O NAGARAJ D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 9. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.1 TO 6, 8 & 9 ARE R/AT THOGARIGATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK -561 205 10. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O DODDAYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 11. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 12. SMT. NIKITHA D/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 13. KUM. MEGHA D/O MUNIRAJU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29900 WP No. 11056 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 14. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O DODDAYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 15. SMT. ANITHA D/O DODDA YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 16. SRI. SRIRAMA S/O DODDAYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 17. SMT. MANJULA D/O DODDA YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NO.10 TO 17 ARE R/AT THOGARIGATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK -561 205 18. SMT. VEENA D/O G. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 19. SRI. RAJESH S/O G. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 20. SMT. BABY @ VANISHREE D/O G. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 21. SRI. G. VENKATESH S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS NO.18 TO 21 ARE R/AT NO.18/16, 6TH MAIN ROAD, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29900 WP No. 11056 of 2026 CHIKKA ADUGODI, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 22. SRI. C.KRISHNAPPA S/O CHIKKA ABBAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT CHIKKABANNAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK 23. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT THOGARIGATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK -561 205 24. SRI. SHANKARAPPA S/O CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT T. HOSAHALLI, THUBUGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 205 25. SRI. MAHESH S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT SUNNAGHATTAHALLI VILLAGE, TUBUGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 205 26. SRI. ASHWATHAPPA S/O GOWRAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RAT THOGARIGATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK -561 205 27. SRI. RAMANJINAPPA S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29900 WP No. 11056 of 2026 R/AT SUNNAGHATTAHALLI VILLAGE, THUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK -561 205 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO- QUASH ANNEXURE-A ORDER DATED 21.01.2026 IN IA 15 PASSED IN OS NO. 93/2016 PENDING IN SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DODDABALLAPURA BY ALLOWING THE WP. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.06.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CAV ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.93/2016 dated 21.01.2026 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, the petitioner/defendant No.6 is before this Court. 2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein who are the plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.93/2016 seeking declaration, partition and separate possession. The petitioner and the other defendants had filed their written statement. The defendant Nos.3, 11 to 18 have filed I.A.No.15 seeking amendment of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29900 WP No. 11056 of 2026 written statement. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that the plaintiffs had filed the suit for partition and separate possession. It is stated that one Yellappa was the propositor of the joint family. The said Yellappa died leaving behind his only son by name Ramkrishnappa to succeed to his estate. The said Ramkrishnappa has married one Papamma, who is the defendant No.1 in the suit and she is no more. She passed away during the pendency of the suit on 11.01.2021. The said Ramkrishnappa and Papamma have ten children in the wedlock. The present plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 9 and 22 are the sons and daughters of Ramkrishnappa and Papamma. It is stated that defendant No.11 and other family members are not having much knowledge about the Court proceedings and defendant Nos.4 and 6 are well versed with the litigation and other aspects and they believed them that they will render justice to all and on blind faith on them, they have signed the vakalath. 3. It is stated that recently, they have noticed that defendant Nos.4 to 6 are acting detrimental to the interest of the other joint family members. Then the defendant No.11 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29900 WP No. 11056 of 2026 other defendants have obtained NOC from the earlier counsel and while briefing the case to the present counsel, defendant Nos.3, 11, 12 and 18 noticed that there are important issues which are twisted by defendant Nos.4 and 6. The defendant Nos.4 and 6 have taken the responsibility to look after the case on behalf of all and at that point of time, they had clearly instructed them to allot the share to plaintiff. It is stated that defendant Nos.4 and 6 intentionally not brought to the notice of the Court about subsequent developments which have happened during the pendency of the suit. In the meantime, it is noticed that share is not claimed in the suit schedule properties item No.1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 22. In the said properties, the defendant Nos.3, 11, 12 and 18 are having lawful rights to claim share equally along with the plaintiff and other defendants. It is stated that defendant Nos.3, 11, 12 and 18 are subsisting right to get the share along with the other parties in the suit out of the mentioned properties. As such, the proposed amendment is very much necessary to bring the facts to the knowledge of the Court which will facilitate the court to decide the matter on merits and no hardship will be caused to the other parties in the suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29900 WP No. 11056 of 2026 4. It is submitted that by way of this amendment, the defendant Nos.3, 11 to 18 want to add in line No.15 at para No.9 – delete “false and are hereby specifically denied”. Add “is true and correct” and add “the defendant No.3, 11 to 18 has requested the defendant Nos.3 and 4 and other family members the partition dated 05.09.2007 is not proper and satisfactory hence repartition need to be done. This demand is done by defendant Nos.3, 11 to 18 due to non-inclusion of several ancestral and joint family properties at the time of partition”. They have sought to delete a sentence at para No.19 and to delete the sentence at para No.20 and add additional para No.26 and 27. The trial Court by order impugned had allowed I.A.No.15. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant No.6 is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.6 submits that defendant Nos.1 to 12 and 15 to 18 had filed their written statement stating that the suit properties were divided before 25 years under the partition deed dated 05.09.2007. The properties are not available for partition. They have sold several properties from the year 2013 to 2018 to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29900 WP No. 11056 of 2026 several defendants and they have sought for dismissal of the suit. The defendant Nos.1 to 12 and 15 to 18 have filed I.A.No.12 on 25.07.2024 by adding para No.26 that the mother Papamma has executed a Will in favour of defendant No.6 dated 17.07.2009. Papamma died on 11.01.2021 and defendant No.6 became the absolute owner of the properties. The plaintiff had filed objections to I.A.No.12 and the same was allowed by the trial Court on 21.01.2026. The defendant Nos.3, 11 to 18 have filed I.A.No.15 on 29.01.2025 by deletion of the admission in para No.26 and 27 and other admissions in the written statement and also set up the counter claim in respect of property in item No.5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18 and 22 of suit properties. It is submitted that the said application is contrary to joint written statement filed on 08.11.2016. It is submitted that the trial Court by way of cryptic order had passed the impugned order which cannot be sustained. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the trial Court had rightly allowed the application and there are no grounds to interfere. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29900 WP No. 11056 of 2026 7. This Court has perused the order impugned. By way of order impugned, the trial Court had decided I.A.Nos.12 to 17. The trial Court had discussed the facts and at point No.3, it is observed that the proposed amendment does not alter the nature of suit or cause of action or takes away the defense or admission. Hence, proposed amendments are just and proper for proper adjudication of the matter and accordingly, allowed the I.A. This Court has perused the said order. When an I.A. is filed seeking amendment in a suit filed in the year 2016, it is for the trial Court to consider the same and pass a reasoned order. Just by stating in one sentence that no prejudice would be caused cannot be termed as an order on the merits of the matter. When the I.A. is filed and all other contesting parties have filed their objections, it is the duty of the trial Court to consider the case and to pass a reasoned order. This kind of an order cannot withstand the legal scrutiny. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. The order passed in I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.93/2016 dated 21.01.2026 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, is set aside and the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29900 WP No. 11056 of 2026 matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1