Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29057 (KAR)

G MAHALINGAIAH v. CHANNABASAVAIAH

WP/14774/2022 · 2026-07-16

Vijaykumar A Patil

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010328452022 NC: 2026:KHC:36521 W.P. No.14774/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.14774/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: G. MAHALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O LATE DODDEGOWDA GOPALANAHALLI, SHETTIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY KEERTHY M, ADV.,) AND: 1. CHANNABASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE DODDEGOWDA. 2. RAMAKKA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS W/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH. 3. PRATIBHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS D/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH. 4. SHAMANTHAKA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH. ALL ARE R/AT GOPALANAHALLI SHETTIKERE HOBLI Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010328452022 NC: 2026:KHC:36521 W.P. No.14774/2022 CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJA S, ADV., FOR R1 TO R4) ****** THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 14.07.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI IN O.S.74/2012 (ANNEXURE-G) & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief: “Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dt. 14.07.2022 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli in OS 74/2012 (Annexure-G).” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010328452022 NC: 2026:KHC:36521 W.P. No.14774/2022 3. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule properties and for the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the respondents-defendants filed a written statement on 30.05.2012. The suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiff challenged the same before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and the matter was remanded back by permitting the parties to adduce evidence. After remand, the petitioner- plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.13 and 14 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’), seeking to amend the plaint and also seeking additional relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The Trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the said applications. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010328452022 NC: 2026:KHC:36521 W.P. No.14774/2022 4. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff is contending that the defendants, in the written statement have taken a stand that the properties purchased are not from the exclusive funds of the plaintiff which compelled the plaintiff to file an application for amendment of the plaint seeking an alternate prayer for partition and separate possession. It is required to be noticed that the defendants have filed the written statement way back in the year 2012 and based on the pleadings and defence of the defendants, issues were framed, the parties led the evidence and the suit came to be dismissed. Later, the Appellate Court remanded the matter back with a direction to permit the parties to adduce further evidence. It is further required to be noticed that at the time of remand, the Appellate Court did not permit the plaintiff to seek any amendment to the pleading. The proposed amendment is nothing but the plaintiff taking diagonally opposite stand than the stand taken by him in the plaint. The Trial Court, considering the said aspect, by a well-reasoned order, - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010328452022 NC: 2026:KHC:36521 W.P. No.14774/2022 proceeded to reject the applications. I do not find any error in the order of the Trial Court calling for interference in this petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38