Sri M A Purushotham vs Sri Narayana Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 10629 Kant

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

        WRIT PETITION NO.9083 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI M A PURUSHOTHAM
       S/O LATE ANANTA RAO
       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

2.     SMT YASHODA BAI
       D/O LATE ANANTHA RAO
       W/O B N RANGANATHA
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
       KALYAGATE, MAGADI TOWN
       RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120

                                       ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.T.N.VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     SRI NARAYANA SINGH
       S/O LATE RAMA SINGH
       AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
       RESIDING AT
       HARISINGH PALYA
       H/O OF HOSAHALLI KASABA HOBLI
       MAGADI TALUK
       RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120
                         2



2.   THE CHIEF SECRETARY
     GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU-560001

3.   THE DIRECTOR
     BACKWARD CLASSES AND MINORITIES
     STATE OF KARNATAKA
     PODIUM BLOCK
     VIDHANA VEEDI
     BENGALURU-560001

4.   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
     RAMANAGARA-562159

5.   THE DISTRICT OFFICE
     DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD
     CLASSES AND MINORITIES
     RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
     RAMANAGARA-562159


6.   THE CHIEF SECRETARY
     PANCHAYATHI
     RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
     RAMANAGARA-562159

                                   .....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.GOPI P.M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE FOR R.1;
SMT.H.R.ANITHA, HCGP FOR R.2 TO R.6)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.03.2022 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.IX IN O.S.NO.237/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, VIDE
                             3



ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID
APPLICATION FILED ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING FOR AMENDMENT OF
PLAINT A AND B SCHEDULE AND ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the

petitioners - plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the order of

the learned Judge passed on an application in I.A.No.9

filed under Order VI Rule 17, wherein the learned

Judge has rejected the amendment application. The

said order is under challenge at the instance of the

plaintiffs.

2. The plaintiffs have instituted a suit for

declaration and for consequential relief of possession.

The petitioners - plaintiffs have also sought relief of

mandatory injunction. The petitioners - plaintiffs are

asserting title over the suit schedule property based

on the registered sale deed dated 20.09.1991. The

petitioners - plaintiffs having commenced with their

evidence, however, found that the there is some error

that has crept in the schedule while instituting the

suit. The petitioners by way of proposed amendment

sought to bring the necessary corrections in the

schedule annexed to the plaint in terms of the

boundaries referred to the title documents. The said

application is rejected by the learned Judge on the

ground that the respondents - defendants are

seriously disputing the boundaries of the suit schedule

properties. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the

boundaries referred to in the plaint are on account of

oversight and typographical mistake. The learned

Judge was of the view that the if there is an error, he

ought to have produced the title documents.

Therefore, the learned Judge was reluctant to allowing

the application on the ground that the proposed

amendment would change the nature of the suit as it

would adversely affect the defence set up by the

respondents - defendants.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners - plaintiffs and learned counsel appearing

for the respondents. I have also examined the

impugned order under challenge as well as the

judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for

the respondents - defendants.

4. The present petitioners - plaintiffs have

instituted a comprehensive suit seeking relief of

declaration of title and for consequential relief of

perpetual injunction and also mandatory injunction.

Having suffered an order at the hands of the learned

Judge, the petitioners - plaintiffs relied on the certified

copy of the registered sale deed. This Court having

verified the recitals of the registered sale deed found

that the boundaries mentioned in the schedule

annexed to the plaint does not tally with the

boundaries referred to in the title documents. This

Court would find the petitioners -plaintiffs have not

furnished the title documents before the Trial Court

while seeking proposed amendment. However, the

findings of the learned Judge that the proposed

amendment will change the nature of the suit

schedule property and would adversely affect the

rights of the defence set up by the respondents -

defendants is also not tenable.

5. The petitioners - plaintiffs are asserting title

based on the registered documents. By way of

proposed amendment, the petitioners - plaintiffs

intends to bring the proposed amendment and rectify

the error that has crept in the schedule annexed to

the plaint. The petitioners - plaintiffs claim that the

boundaries indicated in the plaint are inconsistent with

the boundaries referred in the registered sale deed.

In a suit for declaration of title, the entire burden is on

the plaintiffs to prove their title. Moreover, in the

present case on hand, the petitioners have also

sought relief of mandatory injunction apart from

seeking perpetual injunction. In a comprehensive suit,

the Court has to take lenient view and all

amendments are to liberally allowed. I am unable to

understand as to how the said proposed amendment

would affect the rights of the respondents -

defendants. The petitioners - plaintiffs are not only

required to establish their title but also required to

prove that there is an encroachment by respondents -

defendants. The claim of the plaintiffs and defendants

has to be adjudicated in the context of title

documents. Therefore, the proposed amendment

would not change the nature of the suit as held by the

learned Judge. Therefore, the order under challenge is

not sustainable. Hence, I pass the following;

ORDER

The Writ Petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 14.03.2022 passed on I.A.No.IX in O.S.No.237/2012 is set-aside.

The petitioners - plaintiffs are permitted to carry out the amendment. However, it is open for the respondents - defendants to file additional written statement to the proposed amendment.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NBM