Karnataka High Court
Saifansab S/O Ameensab Nadaf vs Rajesab S/O Ameensab Nadaf on 26 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525
WP No. 104788 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 104788 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SAIFANSAB S/O. AMEENSAB NADAF
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. JANATA PLOT,
BELAGAVI-RAICHUR ROAD,
KALADAGI, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT-587204.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH A.YADWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJESAB S/O. AMEENSAB NADAF
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: RETD.,
R/O. NISAR MADDI GALLI,
VIJAYAPUR, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-582119.
2. SMT. BIYAMA
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
W/O. SAIDUSAB NADAF @ MADAKAVI,
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KALADAGI, TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT-587 204.
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.11.29 11:19:42
+0530
3. SMT. SHAHEENA W/O. IBRAHIM NADAF
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KALADAGI, TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT-587 204.
4. KHWAJAMAINUDDIN
D/O. SAIDUSAB NADAF @ MADAKAVI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KALADAGI, TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT-587 204.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525
WP No. 104788 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. SMT. SHAMASADABI W/O. HUSAINSAB NADAF
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KALADAGI, TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT-587 204.
6. SMT. ASHABI
D/O. SAIDUSAB NADAF @ MADAKAVI,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HER NATURAL GUARDIAN
I.E., RESPONDENT NO. 2.
7. SMT. RAHEMATABI W/O. BADNESAB NADAF
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SECTOR NO. 33, NAVANAGAR,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 103.
8. ABDULSAB S/O. AMEENSAB NADAF
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. GAZETTED,
R/O: SIDRAMESHWAR COLONY, GADDANKERI,
TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT-587 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA S.SAJJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. MALLIKARJUN JAGADISH BIDARI, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS
DATED 05.07.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, BAGALKOT ON IA NO. 11 AND 12 IN OS NO.
135/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-K, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525
WP No. 104788 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 5 and 7.
2. The petition is filed assailing the two orders dated 05.07.2025. Order at I.A. 11 is for amendment of the written statement and I.A. No.12 is for permission to file written statement to the counterclaim claim filed by defendant No.2.
3. The application is filed by defendant No.1 seeking permission to file the written statement to the counter claim. The suit is one for partition and separate possession. Both the applications are rejected. Applications are filed at the stage of final argument.
4. The defendant No.1 seeks to take a stand by way of an amendment that the property at item No.1 is not the joint property of defendants No.1 and 2. The defendant No.1 seeks to withdraw the statement that it is the joint property of the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525 WP No. 104788 of 2025 HC-KAR defendants No.1 and 2 (as urged in the written statement) and intends to incorporate the contention that it is the self acquired property of defendant No.1.
5. It is to be noticed that, the case is already posted for judgment and this amendment which is now sought seeks to withdraw the admission in favour of defendant No.2. Under these circumstances, the application to amend the written statement to retract from the admission made in favour of defendant No.2 cannot be permitted. However, it is also required to be noticed that the proposed amendment also seeks to incorporate a plea relating to alleged Jameenu Hakku Bitta Patra. The relevant portion of proposed amendment in paragraph No.10(a) reads as under:
".................. The document produced by the plaintiffs styled as "Jameenugala Hakku Bittu Patra" is created by the plaintiffs for the purpose of their false claim and produced with malafide intention to cause irreparable loss and injury to this defendant No.1."
6. In addition to that, two more contentions are raised by way of amendment; (a) The suit is bad for non joinder of -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525 WP No. 104788 of 2025 HC-KAR necessary parties and (b) The suit is barred by limitation. As far as the portion extracted above and 2 other amendments noted in clauses (a) and (b) referred to above, the Court does not find any impediment to allow the application to do justice to the parties subject to the petitioner paying appropriate cost. Remaining part of the proposed amendment has to be rejected and as rightly rejected by the Trial Court.
7. As far as the permission to file written statement to the counterclaim filed by defendant No.2 is concerned, it is noticed that it is a suit for partition and separate possession, and in such a suit, each parties can be considered as a plaintiff and each party can claim share independently. That being the position, if the defendant No.2 has filed a counterclaim, the defendant No.1 should be permitted to file written statement to the counterclaim.
8. As far as delay is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the copy of the counterclaim filed by defendant No.2 was not served on -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525 WP No. 104788 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant No.1. Accepting the said plea, the defendant No.1 is permitted to file the written statement. It is made clear that in the written statement to be filed by defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 shall not take any stand retracting the admission in respect of item No.1 property wherein, he has stated that item No.1 property is the joint family property of defendants No.1 and No.2.
9. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned order at I.A.12 is set-aside.
(iii) I.A. No.11 is allowed in part, as indicated above.
(iv) As indicated above, I.A.12 is allowed and defendant No.1 is permitted to file written statement to the counterclaim.
(v) The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff and it is made clear that this Court has not -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525 WP No. 104788 of 2025 HC-KAR expressed any opinion on the nature of the properties.
(vi) All contentions of the parties related to nature of the properties are kept open.
(vii) Plaintiffs are permitted to file rejoinder if required.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42