- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010433432019 NC: 2026:KHC:51061 WP No. 46603 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 46603 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. JOE GOVEAS S/O. LATE CECILIA GOVEAS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANAND VILLA, UPPER BENDOOR, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT, PIN-565 002. 2. JACINTHA JANET PANIKER D/O. LATE CECILIA GOVEAS, RESIDING AT KADRI TEMPLE ROAD, KADRI, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT-575 003. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY .G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANTHA NARONHA W/O. LATE JOHN S. NORONHA, MAJOR, SINCE DEAD BY LRs R2 TO R4 ARE LRs 2. GAUTHAM NORONHA S/O. LATE JOHN S NORONHA, MAJOR, 3. SANJAY NORONHA S/O. LATE JOHN S NORONHA, MAJOR, Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010433432019 NC: 2026:KHC:51061 WP No. 46603 of 2019 4. VIVEK NORONHA S/O. LATE JOHN S NORONHA, MAJOR, R1 TO R4 ARE RESIDING AT BAYADI, MARAKADA, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 015. 5. SMT. DELPHINE NORONHA NEE MIRANDA W/O. LATE VICTOR MIRANDA, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, KADRI TOLLGATE, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT, PIN-575 002. 6. SMT. JULIANA NORONHA NEE FERNANDEZ W/O. LATE GILBERT FERNANDES, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, R/AT KUNJATHABAIL, KAVOOR POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT, PIN-575 015. 7. SMT. MARCELINE NORONHA NEE MENEZES W/O. SATHURINE MENEZES, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, KADRI KALBATTAL, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 002. 8. SMT. LILLY NORONHA NEE VAS W/O. LATE BENNA VAS, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, KUNJATHBAIL, KAVOOR POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT, PIN-575 015. 9. SMT. STELLA NORONHA W/O. CHARLES NORONHA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, NEAR ST. JOSEPH GARAGE, NEAR MEGHAN HOSPITAL ROAD, SHIMOGA, PIN-577 201. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010433432019 NC: 2026:KHC:51061 WP No. 46603 of 2019 10. SMT. MABLE NORONHA NEE PINTO W/O. LATE ALPHONA PINTO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, PALM HOUSE, KUNJATHBAIL, KAVOOR POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT, PIN-575 015. 11. MR. HENRY PINTO S/O. LATE ANNIE NORONHA, MAJOR, MULLAKAD, KAVOOR POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT, PIN-575 015. 12. JUDE GERALD GOVEAS S/O. LATE CECILIA GOVEAS, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT BEJAI CROSS ROAD, BEJAI, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT, PIN-575 003. 13. JAMES GOVEAS S/O. LATE CECILIA GOVEAS, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT PERTH, AUSTRALIA. 14. JOYCE FERNANDES D/O. LATE CECILIA GOVEAS, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT MERCURY APARTMENT, #103, BEJAI CHURCH ROAD, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT, PIN-575 004. 15. DR. JACINTHA MARIA D SOUZA D/O. LATE CECILIA GOVEAS, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT TRISTAR KULSHEKAR, MANGALORE, Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010433432019 NC: 2026:KHC:51061 WP No. 46603 of 2019 D.K. DISTRICT, PIN-575 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. SHIVARAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; V/O DATED 21.06.2021, NOTICE TO R13 DISPENSED WITH; R7, R8, R10, R11, R12, R15 ARE SERVED; V/O DATED 09.07.2025, R2 TO R4 ARE TREATED AS LRs OF R1, R5(A) R5(C), R5(F), R5(G), R5(H), R6(A), R6(B), R6(C), R6(D), R6(E) AND R6(F) ARE SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON IA NO.17 IN OS NO.703/2009 DATED 27.04.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. C J AND JMFC, MANGALORE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY PRAYS FOR ALLOWING IA NO.17 IN OS NO.703/2009 COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs, calling in question the order passed by the learned Trial Judge rejecting the application filed by the petitioners seeking amendment of the plaint. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010433432019 NC: 2026:KHC:51061 WP No. 46603 of 2019 2. The learned Trial Judge has rejected the application principally on the ground that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation. The petitioners, by way of the proposed amendment, seek to introduce pleadings questioning the validity of the registered Release Deed dated 13.07.1998, executed by the plaintiffs’ mother in favour of the husband of defendant No.1. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in addition to supporting the order under challenge, would contend that the proposed amendment is otherwise wholly misconceived. It is submitted that the execution of the registered Release Deed dated 13.07.1998 by the plaintiffs’ mother in favour of the husband of defendant No.1 was specifically pleaded by the defendants in paragraph No.4 of the written statement filed on Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010433432019 NC: 2026:KHC:51061 WP No. 46603 of 2019 17.09.2009. Despite having knowledge of the said pleading, the plaintiffs did not amend the plaint or seek any declaratory relief questioning the validity of the said Release Deed. 5. The proposed amendment, sought to be introduced in the year 2019 by incorporating paragraph No.4(a), proceeds on the assertion that the defendants have manipulated the records and fraudulently created the registered Release Deed dated 13.07.1998. It is, therefore, contended that a mere pleading questioning the document, without seeking a consequential declaration that the registered Release Deed is null, void and not binding on the plaintiffs, would neither enlarge the scope of the suit nor advance the adjudication of the dispute. 6. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and has examined the order under challenge. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010433432019 NC: 2026:KHC:51061 WP No. 46603 of 2019 7. There is no dispute that the defendants, in their written statement filed on 17.09.2009, specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs’ mother had executed a registered Release Deed dated 13.07.1998 in favour of the husband of defendant No.1. Thus, the execution and existence of the said document were within the knowledge of the plaintiffs at least from the date of service of the written statement. 8. Significantly, despite such specific pleading, the plaintiffs did not choose to incorporate any challenge to the said Release Deed for several years. The application for amendment came to be filed only in the year 2019. The proposed amendment now seeks to introduce an allegation that the said document was fraudulently created and that the defendants had manipulated the records. Such a plea, directed against the validity of a registered instrument of the year 1998, cannot be introduced in Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010433432019 NC: 2026:KHC:51061 WP No. 46603 of 2019 isolation without appropriately seeking the necessary substantive relief in respect of the said document. 9. A pleading questioning the validity or genuineness of a registered Release Deed, without a corresponding prayer seeking a declaration as to its invalidity or non- binding nature, would not by itself confer any effective relief upon the plaintiffs. The proposed amendment, therefore, is not merely an attempt to supply an omission in the pleadings; it seeks to introduce, at a highly belated stage, a substantive challenge to a registered instrument which was admittedly brought to the plaintiffs’ notice as early as in the year 2009. 10. The learned Trial Judge has, therefore, rightly declined to permit such an amendment. Even independently of the question of delay and limitation, the proposed amendment, in the absence of an appropriate declaratory relief challenging the registered Release Deed Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010433432019 NC: 2026:KHC:51061 WP No. 46603 of 2019 dated 13.07.1998, would not serve any meaningful purpose in the adjudication of the suit. 11. The contention of the petitioners that the amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy, therefore, cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The attempt to introduce such a plea after a decade from the filing of the written statement, particularly when the very document sought to be questioned was specifically pleaded therein, cannot be permitted. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Judge warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010433432019 NC: 2026:KHC:51061 WP No. 46603 of 2019 In view of dismissal of the writ petition, the cost of Rs.10,000/- deposited before this Court shall enure to the benefit of the respondents-defendants. The Registry is directed to transmit the said amount to the concerned Trial Court forthwith, whereupon the respondents-defendants shall be permitted to withdraw the same in accordance with law. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2009, the learned Trial Judge is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit and make every endeavour to conclude the proceedings at the earliest, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified