- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31499 W.P. No.12009/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.12009/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B.R. GURUDEV S/O LATE B.G. GURUPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS BALLUPETE VILLAGE BELAGODU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573134. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. OMKAR BASAVA PRABHU, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. VINAYAKA INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION (R) BALLUPETE VILLAGE AND POST BELAGODU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK. REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT SRI. VINAYAKA INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION BANAVASE BALLUPETE VILLAGE AND POST BELAGODU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573134. 2. SECRETARY SRI VINAYAKA INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION (R) BALLUPETE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31499 W.P. No.12009/2022 BELAGUDU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573134. 3. SMT. SEEMAMANI W/O B.G. ARJUN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS BALLUPETE VILLAGE BELAGODU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573134. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NIRANJAN KUMAR B, ADV., R1 & R2 R3 SD AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN OS NUMBER 47 OF 2021, ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT SAKLESHPUR. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 28TH OF MARCH 2022 IN OS NUMBER 47 OF 2021 BY THE HONORABLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SAKLESHPUR AT ANNEXURE-A ALLOWING THE INTERIM APPLICATION NUMBER 8 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE INTERIM APPLICATION NUMBER 8 BY REJECTING THE PRAYER SOUGHT FILED IN OS NUMBER 47 OF 2021 BY R1 AND 2 UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC AS PRAYED FOR & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31499 W.P. No.12009/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.03.2020 passed in O.S.No.47/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Sakaleshpur (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.Omkar Basava Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 submits that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration of ownership and other reliefs. In the said suit, petitioner-defendant No.1 has filed detailed written statement denying the assertion made in the plaint by contending that the property was not gifted to the plaintiffs by Sri.B.G.Guruppa and petitioner-defendant No.1, being the son of Sri.B.G.Guruppa, is the owner of the property after the demise of Sri.B.G.Guruppa. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have filed an application in I.A.No.8 seeking amendment of the plaint, wherein they intend to bring - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31499 W.P. No.12009/2022 new facts and new case altogether by contending that the plaintiffs are in adverse possession of the suit schedule property from 1972 and such a stand would be contrary to the earlier stand taken in the plaint. It is further submitted that such a stand is taken by the plaintiffs only because the defendants have filed an application for rejection of plaint contending that the alleged gift, which is claimed in the plaint, is an unregistered gift deed and by the said alleged unregistered gift deed, no title is passed and to overcome such application for rejection of plaint, the present application I.A.No.8 is filed and the trial Court under the impugned order allowed the application without properly appreciating the fact that the stand of the plaintiffs which they have taken earlier is different and now diagonally different stand is being taken by the plaintiffs seeking additional prayer of adverse possession, which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31499 W.P. No.12009/2022 3. Per contra, Sri.Niranjan Kumar B., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that there is no change in the cause of action. It is submitted that the proposed amendment is at the pre-trial stage and as a matter of course, the amendment is required to be allowed. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed the suit in O.S.No.47/2021 before the trial Court seeking the relief of declaration of ownership and other prayers. In the said suit, the petitioner-defendant No.1 has filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31499 W.P. No.12009/2022 contending that the father of the defendant No.1 has never executed any gift deed in favour of the plaintiffs and the alleged oral gift is not a gift deed in the eye of law and the property is not transferred in favour of the plaintiffs and they are in illegal possession and occupation of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint, which came to be allowed by the trial Court under the impugned order. 6. It is required to be noticed that the petitioner- defendant has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the alleged gift by Sri.B.G.Guruppa is oral gift and therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable in view of Section 120 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The records indicate that the said application of the defendant was rejected and the same was affirmed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.245/2022 vide order dated 06.11.2025. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31499 W.P. No.12009/2022 7. Be that as it may, the present application filed by the plaintiffs is seeking to amend the pleading as well as seeking additional prayer. The perusal of the averments made in the application indicates that now the plaintiffs are contending that the plaintiffs are in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from 1972. The said application was allowed by the trial Court. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by the proposed amendment the plaintiffs are taking diagonally different stand. In my considered view the said contention is required to be adjudicated before the trial Court in the pending suit and not at the stage of considering the application for amendment. Admittedly, the amendment sought to the plaint is at the pre-trial stage and it is always open for the defendants to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31499 W.P. No.12009/2022 8. This Court has taken note of the fact that the amendment is necessary to determine the real question of controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the amendment is required to be allowed. Considering the proposed amendment now sought to the plaint, I am of the view that the proposed amendment would not change the cause of action and no prejudice would be caused to the other side. It is open for the other side to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is devoid of merits, accordingly, the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33