- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27339 WP No. 13103 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 13103 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT AKKAIAMMA (SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S). SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT. BAICHAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110. 2. SRI. LAKSHMAIAH, S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA @ PUTTANNA SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA @ PUTT ANNA (BOTH ARE DEAD REP. BY THEIR LR'S). 3. V MANJUNATH S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA @ PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. V RAJESH S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA @ PUTTANNA Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27339 WP No. 13103 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 5. V KUMAR S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA @ PUTTANNA AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO.9, NARAYANANAYAKANA THOTAGALU, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 6. NARAYANASWAMY @ MARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. 7. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR. BOTH PETITIONERS NO.6 AND 7 ARE R/AT DODDAKERE, NARAYANANAYAKANA THOTAGALU, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562110. NOTE: PETITIONERS NO.6 AND 7 ARE TRANSPOSED FROM DEFENDANTS NO.1 AND 2 AS PLAINTIFF NO.4 AND 5 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.12.2025 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVA KUMAR N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. R V BEDDAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S) SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27339 WP No. 13103 of 2026 S/O. LATE. R.V.BEDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. 2. SRI. GOPALAPPA, S/O. LATE R.V.BEDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. 3. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O. LATE R.V.BEDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. 4. SMT. SUBBAKKA, D/O. LATE R.V.BEDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. 5. SMT. SUBBALAKSHMI, D/O. LATE R.V.BEDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. 6. SMT. RANGALAKSHMI, D/O. LATE R.V.BEDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. 7. SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. 8. SRI. ASWATHANARAYANA, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 8 ARE R/AT. DODDAKERE, NARAYANANAYAKANA THOTAGALU, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27339 WP No. 13103 of 2026 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 9. SRI. RAMANJANAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S) SRI. KARTHIK, S/O. LATE RAMANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. 10. SRI PRAJWAL S/O. LATE RAMANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. BOTH ARE R/AT. NO.2, MAILARALINGESHVRA NILAYA, SHRIGANDHANAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE - 560 091. 11. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 12. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE - 01. 13. THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 14. SRI. MOHAMMED ALI VAKIL, S/O. MR. MOHSIN ALI VAKIL, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT. NO.78, KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL AREA, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27339 WP No. 13103 of 2026 JYOTHI NIVAS, COLLAGE ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 096. REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI. VASI-UR-RAHAMAN, S/O. B. A. RAHMAN SHARIEF, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 15. SMT. SAKAMMA, W/O. LATE SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. 16. SRI RAVIKUMAR S/O. LATE SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. 17. SRI RANGANATH BABU A/O. LATE SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR. RESPONDENTS NO.11 TO 13 ARE R/AT. KONANAKUNTE VILLAGE KANAKAPURA ROAD, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 062. 18. SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. LATE SRINIVASAMURTHY, JUDGE, CIVIL JUDGE COURT, K.R.PET, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. 19. SRI. DASTHAGIRISAB, S/O. LATE NHANNESAB, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT. NANDANAHOSAHALLI, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27339 WP No. 13103 of 2026 CHILKALA NEERPU HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 125. 20. M/S. COPPERS COIN REALITY PRIVATE LTD, OFFICE NO.481, A-B, IVTH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE - 560 058. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. NASEER AHMED 21. M/S. T-HILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, FORMERLY KNOWN AS JAGANMATA PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY.NO.08, OPP. TO MAHINDRA SATYAM SIDE-LINE OF GODREJ GREEN BUILDING KONDAPURA, HYDERABAD TELANGANA - 500 033, ALSO AT NO.130/2, ULSOOR ROAD BANGALORE - 560 042. REP. BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, M. G. SANDEEP S/O. M. V. GURURAJA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT DIRECTION ORDER IN THE NATURE TO QUASH THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 16/08/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF 111 ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT- DEVANAHALLI AND C/C OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, DEVANAHALLI IN O.S. NO. 34/2006 ON 1.A NO. 40 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS/ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27339 WP No. 13103 of 2026 PETITIONERS U/O 6 RULE 17 OF CPC IN PARTLY REJECTING THE PRAYER OF THE PLAINTIFF RELATING TO DECLARE THAT THE SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE DEFENDANT NO. 3, 10, 15, 16 IN FAVOUR OF DEFENDANT NO. 17 ARE NOT BINDING ON THE PLAINTIFFS VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.40 filed under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC in O.S. No.34/2006 dated 16.08.2025 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, the plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration in the year 1997. Now the present IA is filed seeking amendment of the pleadings i.e. IA No.40 stating that there are certain typographical mistakes in the plaint and also certain sale deeds were executed in the year 2005, 2006 and 2010 and the said sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff and sought for a declaration in that regard. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27339 WP No. 13103 of 2026 3. The Trial Court, by order impugned, had partly allowed the application observing that, the plaintiffs have sought in the application that the name of defendant No.4 has been wrongly mentioned in the cause title. The survey number of the suit schedule property also changed during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, they want to insert the new survey numbers in the plaint and the Trial Court has observed that by allowing this plaint, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants and accordingly, the prayer No.1 as well as the amendment is ordered. 4. Next coming to the second prayer, the Trial Court has observed that the suit is filed in the year 1997. The defendants filed their written statement in 1997 itself. Defendants Nos. 11 to 14 were brought on record on 19.03.2004. They have filed their written statement on 09.10.2009. It is also clear from the record that defendant No.15 was impleaded on 27.06.2013, and he has filed a written statement in the year 2016. The defendants have taken a specific stand that they have purchased a property through a registered sale deed in the year 1997 itself and later 2005 itself. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27339 WP No. 13103 of 2026 5. The Trial Court has further observed that when the defendants are contending that the defendant No.3 has executed the sale deed, filing an application in the year 2025 seeking amendment and praying to declare the sale deed executed by defendant No.3 and subsequently executed with other defendants in favour of defendant No.17 is not binding on the plaintiffs is not correct and the same is barred by limitation. 6. It is also observed that the plaintiffs have not shown any due diligence why they have not incorporated the said amendment in the pleadings earlier. The plaintiffs have not explained in the application why those facts were not plead earlier when the defendants have filed the written statement and the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that as far as the said prayer is concerned, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the amendment and accordingly, rejected the said prayer and allowed IA No.40 as far as correction in the plaint is concerned. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the sale deeds in respect of the suit schedule property are executed and unless and until the petitioners - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27339 WP No. 13103 of 2026 seeks a relief, even in the event of the suit being decreed, the purpose of the petitioners will not be served. It is further submitted that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Court ought to have allowed the application, which is in the interest of justice. The Trial Court, merely on technical grounds, has dismissed the application. It is submitted that a liberty may be granted to file a fresh application raising all the contentions. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. 9. The suit is of the year 1997, which is re-numbered as O.S.No.34/2006. After the commencement of the trial, when an application is filed seeking amendment of the pleadings, the plaintiff has to stated in the affidavit that in spite of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff, all these facts could not be brought to the notice of the Court and he could not seek such a relief at an earliest point of time. Very interestingly in this case, all the purchasers are before the Court, they were impleaded long back right from 2010 and the latest impleadment is in the year 2013, considering even from 2013, after 12 years, the petitioner files the IA seeking amendment of the prayer stating - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27339 WP No. 13103 of 2026 that the said sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs. The Court was right in dismissing the application, which is filed belatedly without any probable reason. It is submitted before this Court that they will file an affidavit giving the reasons. Now all the facts are on record and the purchasers are on record from 2013 and the sale deeds are in the knowledge of the petitioners from the year 2013. In those facts, whatever the petitioners says that cannot be taken into consideration. The petitioners kept quiet from the year 2013 to 2025. In those circumstances, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere. 10. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending IA., if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6