Karnataka High Court
Sri Habeeb Khan vs Smt Doddathayamma on 2 January, 2023
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
WP No. 10677 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO.10677 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI HABEEB KHAN
S/O LATE HAMEED KHAN,
NO.28, OLD GURAPPANAPALYA,
BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, DRC POST,
BANGALORE-560 029
DEAD BY HIS LRS
1(A)
SHRI MUFFED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE HABEEB KHAN
1(B) SHRI NAWAZ KHAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O LATE HABEEB KHAN,
BOTH ARE AT:
Digitally NO.28, 9TH MAIN,
signed by OLD GURAPPANA PALYA,
VIJAYA P BTM 1ST STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 029.
Location: ... PETITIONERS
High Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. VISHNU HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT DODDATHAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O LATE K.HANUMANTHAPPA
DEAD BY HER LRS
-2-
WP No. 10677 of 2022
1(A) CHINNASWAMY
S/O LATE DODDATHAYAMMA
NO.6/A, #RD CROSS ROAD, 1ST BLOCK,
JAYANAGARA BYSANDRA,
BENGLAURU-560 011.
1(B) ASHOK KUMAR
S/O LATE DODDATHAYAMMA
1(C) RAVI KUMAR
S/O LATE DODDATHAYAMMA,
1(B) & 1(C) BOTH ARE AT:
NO.313, 1ST CROSS SOLAPPA GARDEN
MUNESHWARA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN ROAD
CHUNCHAGATTA KOTHANNUR MAIN ROAD
J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 062.
1(D) SUJATHA
D/O LATE DODDATHAYAMMA,
NO.19, 3RD CROSS, TEMPLE ROAD,
1ST BLOCK EAST, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
JAYANAGAR, BYSANDRA,
BENGALURU-560 011.
1(E) SUVARNA
D/O LATE DODDATHAYAMMA
1(F) LAKSHMIDEVI
D/O LATE DODDATHAYAMMA
BOTH 1(E) & 1(F) ARE AT:
NO.56/47, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
NEAR CANCLINIC,
OLD GURAPPANAPALYA,
-3-
WP No. 10677 of 2022
B.G.ROAD, DR COLLEGE POST,
BENGALURU-560 029.
2. SMT.H.SUVARNA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
D/O LATE K.HANUMANTHAPPA,
3. SMT.LAKSHMI DEVI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O LATE K.HANUMANTHAPPA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
PORTION OF MUNICIPAL NO.3,
OLD HOUSE LIST NO.143
1ST MAIN ROAD, OLD GURAPPANAPALYA,
BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, DRC POST,
BENGALURU-560 029.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. SATEESH B., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO (F)]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.21.4.2022 IN
O.S.NO.25187/2013 PASSED BY THE LXXII ADDL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU (CCH-73)
i.e ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQEUNTLY ALLOW THE IA NO.1/20
FILED FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
WP No. 10677 of 2022
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by the plaintiffs
calling in question the correctness of the order dated
21.04.2022 at Annexure-A whereby I.A.1/2020 filed by the
plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC
has been rejected.
2. The plaintiffs filed the application seeking for
amendment of the plaint and the proposed amendment reads
as follows:
"Proposed amendment in Para No. 10.
It is further submitted that, at the time of
evidence of the defendant, the defendants have
filed some strange documents which are not the
part of the pleadings. In the written statement as
well as in evidence, the disputed gift deed dated
7/2/2000 or details about the case filed in M.A No.
15/2007 before this Hon'ble Court and Judgment
and decree of this Hon'ble Court in OS No
3223/1984. The said gift deed dated 7/2/2000 is
created by the defendants with K. Hanumanthappa
and the said K Hanumanthappa has no authority
or not having right to execute the said gift deed as
WP No. 10677 of 2022
the said K. Hanumanthappa not the owner or not
having any rights, title or any features of
ownership in the property shown in the Schedule
of the disputed Gift deed dated 7/2/2000. The said
disputed Gift Deed is made behind the Plaintiff or
his vendor are not the party in MA No 15/2007
and in OS No.3223/1984, hence the said order/
Judgment/Decree in the said proceedings. The
Judgment/order dated 10-8-2016 in M A. No.
15/2007 passed by the Vth Additional City Civil
and Session Judge, Bangalore and Judgment and
Decree in 0.S No 3223/1984 passed by the 14th
Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore dated 4-11-
1986 are not binding on the plaintiff.
The said gift deed dated 7/2/2000 is void in ab
initio and not binding on the plaintiff.
In praver (e) The disputed get deed dated
7/2/2000 standding in the none of the 1st
defendant register No.JNR 3725/1999-2000,
registered in the office of the Sub Registrar
Jayanagar is void in ab initio and not binding on
the plaint as invalid and
To declare that, the Judgment/order dated 10-8
2016 in MA. No 15/2007 passed by the Vth
Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bangalore
and Judgment and Decree in OS No 3223/1984
WP No. 10677 of 2022
passed by the 14th Additional City Civil Court,
Bangalore dated 4-11-1986 are not binding on the
plaintiff."
3. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants
submits that the application was filed at a belated stage when
the trial was concluded and that no discretion ought to be
exercised in favour of the petitioners herein.
4. After hearing the matter for sometime, learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners would not
seek an opportunity to lead any further evidence as further
evidence regarding the proposed amendment is already on
record and that the application has been filed only in order to
prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is further submitted that
parties have already raised an issue as regards to the contents
of the proposed amendment including as regards to the
disputed gift deed dated 07.02.2000. It is further submitted
that even as regards the proceedings in O.S.No.3223/1984 and
M.A.No.15/2007, such orders are part of the record and the
proposed amendment at the payer column (e), is a question of
WP No. 10677 of 2022
law insofar as the disputed gift deed dated 07.02.2000, and the
parties have already led in evidence regarding the same.
5. After looking into the nature of amendment sought
for and also the submission of learned counsel for petitioners
that no further evidence would be led in, it is deemed
appropriate to allow the application as the amendment sought
for does not change the nature of the suit as such.
6. This Court is inclined to allow the application
keeping in mind that the multiplicity of proceedings could be
avoided and contentions to be raised at the time of
appeal/execution proceedings could also be avoided.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.1/2020 is
allowed. By virtue of setting aside of the impugned order and
allowing of I.A.1/2020 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with
Section 151 of CPC, necessary amendment to be carried out to
the plaint forthwith. Contentions of the respondents are kept
open and are at liberty to file their additional written statement
insofar as the amendment now permitted to be carried out.
WP No. 10677 of 2022
Submission that petitioners shall not lead any fresh evidence is
taken on record.
7. In light of the above, the petition is allowed.
Plaintiffs/Petitioners to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the
Defendants/Respondents.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VP
