- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010604152023 NC: 2026:KHC:44150 W.P. No.26090/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.26090/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O LATE BACHAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY HER LR’S PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 AND 11TH RESPONDENT HEREIN) SRI. B. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2. SRI. B. NANJE GOWDA S/O LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KUNDANA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK – 562110. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J.C. REDDY, ADV., FOR SRI. CHANDRAPPA V, ADV.,) AND: SRI. ANJINAPPA @ CHIKKAPPAIAH S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9 HEREIN). SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O ANJINAPPA Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010604152023 NC: 2026:KHC:44150 W.P. No.26090/2023 1. SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9 HEREIN) SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. KUNDANA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562110. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O DIBBUR RAMANNA K. NARAYANAPURA KOTHANUR POST, K R PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU 560077. 2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O ANJINAPPA W/O GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A TALUK BUND, SAMPIGEHALLI ROAD JAKKUR VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560064. 3. SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O ANJINAPPA W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A VISHWANATHAPURA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK 562110. 4. DR. RAJENDRA S/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A VETERINARY HOSPITAL THUBAGERE VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH DODDABALLAPURA TALUK. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SOMESHWARA EXTENSION - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010604152023 NC: 2026:KHC:44150 W.P. No.26090/2023 DODDABALLAPURA TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561203. 5. SMT. ANNAPOORNA D/O ANJINAPPA W/O H. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A NO.67, SRINIVASA NILAYA 1ST MAIN, 13TH CROSS MTS LAYOUT, NEAR GARDEN SCHOOL KENGERI NEW TOWN BANGALORE 560 060. 6. SRI. RAMESH S/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 7. SRI. GANGADHAR S/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 8. SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. R6 TO R8 ARE R/AT KUNDANA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK – 562110. 9. SMT. GIRIJA D/O ANJINAPPA W/O B. BALAJI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A D NO.983, HOUSING BOARD MANORAM PALYA R T NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 003. 10. SRI. A.N. BYRE GOWDA S/O NARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010604152023 NC: 2026:KHC:44150 W.P. No.26090/2023 JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562157. 11. SRI. B. ASHWATHAPPA S/O LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT. KUNDANA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK 562110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDAN RAJAPPA, ADV., FOR SRI. VENKATESH DALWAI, ADV., FOR R1, R4, R6, R7, R8 SRI. D.A. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV., FOR R10 R3, R5, R9 ARE SERVED V/O/DTD:29.11.2023, NOTICE TO R11 IS D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A NO. IX FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S. NO.950/2007 DATED 05.10.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-M, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVANAHALLI & 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 petition is filed challenging the order dated 05.10.2023 passed on IA.No.9 in OS.No.950/2007 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (for short ‘the trial Court’). - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010604152023 NC: 2026:KHC:44150 W.P. No.26090/2023 2. Heard Sri.J.C.Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Chandrappa V., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Chandan Rajappa, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Venkatesh Dalwai, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 6 to 8, Sri.D.A.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.10 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioners filed a suit in OS.No.950/2007 seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in respect of the suit schedule property, a further declaration that the sale deed dated 30.07.2007, said to have been executed by defendant Nos.1 to 11 in favour of defendant No.12 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.270 measuring 4 acres of Aluru Duddanahalli is not binding on the plaintiffs and a consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, defendant Nos.1 to 11 filed a written statement. Defendant No.12 is the purchaser of the property measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.270 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010604152023 NC: 2026:KHC:44150 W.P. No.26090/2023 under a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2007. Thereafter, 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 and incorporation of an additional prayer. The said application was opposed by defendant No.12. 4. The trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the application mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs were contending that the property had been partitioned under the registered partition deed dated 24.01.2003 and had filed the application seeking amendment after a period of 12 years from the date of filing of the suit, seeking alteration of the boundaries of the suit property on the ground that the same had been incorrectly stated in the plaint due to inadvertence. The trial Court further recorded the reasons that the application for amendment had been filed after 16 years from the date of the registered partition deed and based - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010604152023 NC: 2026:KHC:44150 W.P. No.26090/2023 on such registered partition deed, defendant No.12 had purchased the property for valuable consideration and if such application is allowed and boundaries are altered, great prejudice would be caused to defendant No.12. The trial Court also recorded the reasons that the amendment and the prayer were barred by law of limitation. 5. It is to be noticed that the plaintiffs filed the application seeking amendment on 14.08.2019, which is admittedly after a period of 12 years from the date of filing of the suit and 16 years from the date of the registered partition deed dated 24.01.2003. By way of the amendment application, the plaintiffs sought to alter the boundaries of the suit property contending that the boundaries had been incorrectly stated in the plaint and the error was noticed by their counsel only at the time of preparing for the evidence, pursuant to which the application came to be filed. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010604152023 NC: 2026:KHC:44150 W.P. No.26090/2023 6. It is further to be noticed that the application is accompanied by an affidavit. The affidavit of plaintiff No.3 does not indicate any sufficient cause for not seeking amendment at the earliest stage of proceedings. The trial Court, taking all the aspects has rightly come to the conclusion that filing of application for amendment after 12 years from the date of filing of the suit and after 16 years from the date of partition deed, the amendment to the pleading and the additional prayer were barred by law of limitation. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14