- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34338 W.P. No.17326/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.17326/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KUMARI W/O DIVAKARA M.H. D/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 2. SRI. DIVAKARA M.H. S/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA M.M. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT UDDUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK-571105 MYSURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. KALPANA P.V. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA SINGH S/O M.C. DHEER SINGH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/A NO.147, 2ND CROSS LAGGERE (PEENYA) BWS LAYOUT BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE-560058. 2. SMT. THAYAMMA W/O SIDDARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A KALLURU NAGANAHALLI Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34338 W.P. No.17326/2021 YELWALA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATHEESH H.K. ADV., FOR R1 SRI. AMSHITH HEGDE H.S. ADV., FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 01.06.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNSUR IN O.S.NO.24/2016 IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT. ALLOW APPLICATION DTD. 25.01.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S. NO.24/2016 FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 01.06.2019 passed in OS.No.24/2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. Heard Smt.Kalpana P.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Satheesh H.K., learned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34338 W.P. No.17326/2021 counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration that they are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with a consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. In the said suit, the defendant No.1 filed a detailed written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiffs adduced their evidence. When the matter was posted for the cross-examination of PW1, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking amendment of the plaint, which was opposed by defendant No.2. The trial Court under the impugned order dismissed the said application by recording reasons that the plea of adverse possession is a defence available to the defendants and it can only be a shield and cannot be the sword and that the proposed amendment was contrary - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34338 W.P. No.17326/2021 to their pleadings and that it changes the nature of suit as well as the cause of action. 4. It is required to be noticed that the plaintiffs at paragraph No.4 of the plaint had specifically pleaded that they had perfected their possession by way of adverse possession against the defendants as well as the other persons claiming interest, right, title over the property. Based on the said pleading, the plaintiffs sought the relief of declaration that they are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with a relief of permanent injunction. It is further required to be noticed that based on such pleadings, the trial Court framed issues Nos.1 to 4 and later an additional issue was framed on 26.07.2021 as to "whether the plaintiffs prove that they acquired the title over the suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession?". 5. Significantly, the plaintiffs came to know about the sale after filing of the suit, hence filed an application. A - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34338 W.P. No.17326/2021 perusal of the application and the affidavit filed in support of the said application indicates that the plaintiffs intend to further state that they have been in possession of the suit schedule property since 1971, which was in the knowledge of the father of defendant No.1. They also made an averment that defendant No.1 had sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2016. Consequently, they also sought additional prayer of declaration that as they had perfected their ownership by virtue of adverse possession, the sale deed dated 10.02.2016 is not binding on them. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the said application. 6. The proposed amendment to the plaint is an event that took place just prior to the filing of the suit which came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit; hence, application is filed. The plaintiffs had already sought the relief and pleaded in the plaint with regard to the adverse possession. The trial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34338 W.P. No.17326/2021 Court considering the said pleading had also framed additional issue. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the proposed amendment would change the cause of action and nature of the suit is contrary to the pleading available on record and contrary to the additional issue framed by it. It is required to be noticed that as soon as the plaintiffs came to know that the suit schedule property was sold in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1, they filed the said application. In my considered view, allowing the said application would neither alter the nature of suit nor alter the cause of action and no prejudice would be caused to the other side. 7. At this stage, it is also required to be noticed that the plaintiffs were permitted to implead defendant No.2, who had purchased the property in question just before the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs came to know about the sale, after filing of the suit; hence, an application was filed. It is always open to the defendants to file an additional written statement to the amended - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34338 W.P. No.17326/2021 plaint. For the preceding analysis, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 01.06.2019 passed in OS.No.24/2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment by the plaint is allowed. iii. The plaintiffs shall file amended plaint within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. iv. The defendants are permitted to file an additional written statement, if any. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25