- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:185 WP No. 10635 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 10635 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTHA W/O. R.PANDURANGA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. KUM. PANCHAMI, D/O SMT. SHANTHA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 3. KUM. PALLAVI, D/O. SMT. SHANTHA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO. 13/3-1, SC ROAD, YESHWANTHAPUR, NEAR GAYATHRI TEMPLE, BENGALURU-560 022. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.JAYASIMHA K.S. ADVCATE FOR SRI SHREENEVASA.K.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE. Y.P.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. SRI. MANJUNATH, S/O LATE. Y.P.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:185 WP No. 10635 of 2020 2(a) 2(b) SMT. ASHWINI W/O MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NO.376/2, PUSHKARNI ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064. SMT. SRILEKHA D/O LATE MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, NO.376/2, PUSHKARNI ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064. 3. SRI.NAGESH, S/O LATE. Y.P.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.776, PUSHKARNI ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. 4. SRI.T.S.MOHAN RAO, S/O LATE. SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 5. SMT. N.SHANTHI W/O T.S.MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.44/10, OPP. EASHWARA TEMPLE, S.C.ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KENCHAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; R1-SERVED; R3-NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD:23.04.2021; R2(A&B)-NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD:23.04.2021; THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 09.03.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4513/2010 ON THE FILE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:185 WP No. 10635 of 2020 OF XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-27) BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: [ CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. This petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 09.03.2020 on I.A.No.22 in O.S.No.4513/2010 passed by the XII Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”). By the Impugned Order, an application filed under Order 14 Rule 5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to frame an additional issue has been dismissed. 2. The record reflects that the issues were framed by the Trial Court on 20.11.2011 and thereafter, the first additional issues were framed on an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs on 29.11.2014. Subsequently, second additional issue was framed by the Trial Court on 08.11.2016. In all, a total of seven issues were framed by the learned Trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:185 WP No. 10635 of 2020 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that petitioners/plaintiffs’ application was filed for framing of a third additional issue in the year 2016. The application acknowledges the fact that issues have already been framed on 20.09.2011. It further sets out that after the additional written statement was filed, additional issues were framed on 29.11.2014. However, it further sets out that the petitioners/plaintiffs wishes to amend their plaint once again and thus the amendment of the additional issues is requisite. The relevant extract is below: “2. I submit that this Hon'ble Court on the basis of pleadings has framed issues on 20.9.2011. I further submit that subsequently on the basis of amendment sought in the plaint and on filing additional written statement by Defendants this Hon'ble Court has framed the additional issues on 29.11.2014. 3. I am advised to submit that thereafter I have filed an application for amendment in the plaint to include the additional Para No. 12A & 12B. I state that subsequent to amendment of plaint at Para No.12A & 12B and as per plea taken by us the additional issue as sought for is very much necessary. 4. I state that as pleaded in Para No.12A & 12B that 1st Defendant has sold property Kaneshumari No.190, Municipal No. 13/3-1, i.e. the suit schedule property in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:185 WP No. 10635 of 2020 favour of Y.N.Ashwath and his wife B. H. Renuka on 22.11.2004 and that the said property was earlier purchased by Smt. Yashodhamma under Sale Deed Dt: 29.1.1992 from G.A. Padmanabha Shetty S/o. Anantharama Shetty. However by virtue of sale deed Dt: 22.11.2004, 1st Defendant alleging that he is the husband of Late.Yashodhamma sold the property beyond the measurements as reflected in the sale deed Dt: 29.1.1992 and furthermore 1st Defendant fraudulently sold the non existing property in favour of Defendant No. 2 & 3. Hence even otherwise 2nd & 3rd Defendant have no derivative title by virtue of registered sale deed Dt:19.4.2010 executed by 1st Defendant in their favour. Hence the additional issue as sought for in the application is necessary. Hence this application.” [Emphasis Supplied] 4. Although the application for amendment was initially disallowed by the learned Trial Court via its order dated 03.07.2017, the order was set aside by the co-ordinate bench of this Court by its order dated 20.11.2019. The amendment was allowed subject to payment of costs in the sum of Rs.5,000/- to respondent Nos.4 and 5. 5. The learned Trial Court examined the application for additional issues and found that the application had been filed after the suit has reached the argument stage and that after - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:185 WP No. 10635 of 2020 the matter was posted for arguments, seven to nine adjournments were sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs and only then was the application filed on 17.02.2020. The learned Trial Court also sets out the additional issues framed and gave a finding that since there is already an issue with respect to the sale deed dated 19.04.2010 which was framed by the Trial Court on 29.11.2014, the framing of a further additional issue would not be requisite. 6. The record reflects that the following issues have already been framed: “(i) On 20.11.2011: 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove the lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2) Whether the plaintiffs prove the interference by the defendants? 3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief's claimed? 4) What order or decree? (ii) On 29.11.2014 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the registered sale deed dated 19.4.10 executed by 1st defendant in favour of defendants Nos. 2 & 3 is not binding on them? 2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:185 WP No. 10635 of 2020 (iii) On 08.11.2016 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the deceased 1st defendant played fraud against the deceased Yashodamma by incorporating his name as husband of Yashodamma in the Sale Deed dated 27.01.1992?” 7. Undisputedly, the amendment that was allowed in paragraph Nos.12(a) and 12(b) by the learned Trial Court is in relation to a derivative title by virtue of the registered sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs is unable to controvert that the issue of derivative title is in respect of the registered sale deed dated 19.04.2010 and that the validity and effect of such sale deed is already part of the issues framed on 29.11.2014. In addition, the issue with respect to the sale deed executed by late Yashodamma on 29.01.1992 forms part of the issues framed on 08.11.2016. Thus, clearly, the contentions of the petitioners/plaintiffs could be adjudicated in the issues which have been framed by the Trial Court on three occasions. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs seeks and is granted liberty to withdraw the present petition. 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. This withdrawal shall not preclude the petitioners/plaintiffs from raising all contentions before the Trial Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:185 WP No. 10635 of 2020 10. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA