Sri. Bhagwandas And Anr vs Mrs. Christakumari And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 9816 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Bhagwandas And Anr vs Mrs. Christakumari And Ors on 4 April, 2024

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                         -1-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC-K:2904
                                                  WP No. 200604 of 2021




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                KALABURAGI BENCH

                      DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                       BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                   WRIT PETITION NO.200604 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
              BETWEEN:

              1.   SRI. BHAGWANDAS,
                   S/O LATE PANDHARINATH MALANI,
                   AGE: 68 YEARS
                   OCC: AGRI., AND BUSINESS,
                   R/O OSMAN GUNJ, BIDAR.

              2.   SRI. SHIVARATAN
                   S/O LATE PANDHARINATH MALANI
                   AGE: 72 YEARS
                   OCC: AGRI., AND BUSINESS,
                   R/O OSMAN GUNJ, BIDAR


                                                           ...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed (BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
by RENUKA
Location: High AND:
Court Of
Karnataka        1.   MRS. CHRISTAKUMARI,
                      W/O JOSEPH,
                      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
                      OCC: AGRI., AND ANGANWADI TEACHER,
                      R/O HALLADKHERI (K),
                      TQ AND DIST: BIDAR-585401.

              2.   SUBHASH S/O LATE SHARNU
                   @ SHARNAPPA
                   AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,
                   R/O HALLADKHERI (K),
                   TQ AND DIST: BIDAR-585401.
                            -2-
                                  NC: 2024:KHC-K:2904
                                    WP No. 200604 of 2021




3.   SUREKHA W/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR
     AGE: 54 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O VILLAGE HALADKERI (K),
     TQ: BIDAR-585401.

4.   PAVITRA
     D/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR
     AGE: 34 YEARS,
     R/O VILLAGE HALADKERI (K),
     TQ: BIDAR

5.   CHAITRA
     D/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR
     AGE: 36 YEARS,
     R/O VILLAGE HALADKERI (K),
     TQ: BIDAR-585401.

6.   PREMAKUMARI
     W/O ABHIMAN NETKAR
     AGE: 66 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O LALWADI, CHRISTAN HOUSE,
     BIDAR-585401.

7.   ARUNAKUMARI
     D/O JAIWANTH
     AGE:58 YEARS,
     OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O CHAMMAL,
     TQ:SHAHAPUR,
     DIST:GULBARGA,
     NOW DIST:YADGIRI-585201.

8.   LALITHABAI W/O SHRIKANTH
     AGE:34 YEARS,
     OCC:GOVT. TEACHER
     HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
     R/O MUNEERWADI, RAICHUR-585101.

9.   RATNAKUMARI W/O SAMPATH
     AGE:54 YEARS,
                           -3-
                                 NC: 2024:KHC-K:2904
                                  WP No. 200604 of 2021




    OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
    R/O VILLAGE REKULGI,
    TQ: DIST: BIDAR-585401.

10. SMT. SHANTA KUMARI
    W/O SURESHCHANDRA,
    AGE:MAJOR, OCC:GOVT. TEACHER,
    R/O S.R.G. COLONY,
    STATION ROAD,
    RAICHUR-585101.

11. MANIKAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA
    AGE:87 YEARS,
    OCC:LABOUR

12. SHESHIKALA W/O BHASKAR
    AGE:52 YEARS,
    OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
    R/O I.D.B.COLONY,
    HALADKHERI(K)
    TQ:BIDAR-585401.

13. ASHOK S/O MANIKAPPA
    AGE:40 YEARS,
    OCC: AUTO DRIVER,
    R/O CHRISTENWADA,
    JANWADA, TQ:BIDAR-585401.

14. CHANDRAKANT S/O MANIKAPPA
    AGE:57 YEARS,
    OCC: LABOUR,
    R/O CHRISTENWADA,
    JANWADA, TQ: BIDAR-585401.

15. SHAMSUNDAR S/O MANIKAPPA
    AGE:59 YEARS,
    OCC: AUTO DRIVER,
    R/O CHRISTENWADA,
    JANWADA, TQ: BIDAR-585401.

16. VASANTHA W/O LATE CHRISTI
    AGE:57 YEARS,
                           -4-
                                NC: 2024:KHC-K:2904
                                 WP No. 200604 of 2021




    OCC:AGRICULTURE,
    R/O HALLADKHERI(K),
    TQ: BIDAR-585401.

17. SRI.UMAKANT,
    S/O LATE GURUPADAPPA NAGMARPALLI
    AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
    OCC: AGRI AND SOCIAL WORKER,
    R/O K.H.B. LIG COLONY,
    BIDAR-585401

18. SRI SURYAKANT,
    S/O LATE GURUPADAPPA NAGMARPALLI,
    AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
    OCC: AGRI AND SOCIAL WORKER,
    R/O RTA NAGAR, BDA COMPLEX,
    SARASWATI NIVAS,
    BANGALORE-5600001

19. SMT. MANGALA
    W/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR
    AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
    OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS,
    R/O SHIVANAGAR NORTH,
    NEAR MAIN PAPNASH GATE,
    BIDAR-585401

20. AKASH S/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR
    AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
    OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS,
    R/O SHIVANAGAR NORTH,
    NEAR MAIN PAPNASH GATE,
    BIDAR-585401

21. SMT. LALITA W/O S.R.GONI
    D/O LATE GURUPADAPPA NAGMARPALLI,
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
    OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
    R/O KHB COLONY, BIDAR-585401

22. KAVITA
    D/O LATE GURUPADAPPA NAGMARPALLI
                           -5-
                                NC: 2024:KHC-K:2904
                                     WP No. 200604 of 2021




    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
    OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
    R/O KHB COLONY, BIDAR-585401

23. SMT BABA FIRDOUS FATHIMA
    W/O NASHEER FAHEEM
    AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
    R/O NOOR KHAN TALEEM,
    BIDAR-585401.

24. BABURAO S/O MARUTHIRAO
    AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O BIDAR PROPER-585401.

25. MOHIUDDIN KHAN
    S/O ABDUL MAJID KHAN
    AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRI.,
    R/O BIDAR-585401.

26. AHMED MOHIUDDIN
    S/O GULAM DASTAGIR
    AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,
    R/O H.NO.2-2-85, KULSUM GALLI,
    BIDAR-585401.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MANURE ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DT.5/4/2021, NOTICE TO R2 TO R26 DISPENSED WITH;

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
15.02.2021 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER
ORDER VI, RULE 17 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN OS
NO.160/1995 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AT BIDAR, AS ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY
TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS AS PRAYED
FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                               -6-
                                     NC: 2024:KHC-K:2904
                                           WP No. 200604 of 2021




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

Heard Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri Ashok Kumar Manure learned counsel

for respondent No.1.

2. The writ petition is filed with the following

prayer:

"a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or direction to quash the impugned Order dated 15.02.2021 rejecting the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure in OS No.160/1995 passed by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Bidar, as Annexure-F and consequently to allow the application of the petitioners as prayed for, in the interest of justice and equity.

b) Pass such other Order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

3. The facts of the case in brief are as under:

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2904

The petitioners are the defendants in

O.S.No.160/1995. The trial in the suit has concluded after

framing the issues and at the fag end of the trial, the

defendants have filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17

of CPC by contending that the father of the plaintiff has

converted into Christian community and therefore, he is

not having a right over the suit property.

4. The amendment was rejected by the Trial

Court. The same is called in question in this writ petition.

5. Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioners contended that the parties were allowed to lead

evidence, join the issues and already adduced the

evidence and already there is a material evidence on

record which would show that the plaintiff is not entitled to

right over the suit property and by way of that abundant

caution, the defendants wanted to place on record the

additional pleadings by taking a specific plea that the

father of the plaintiff got converted into Christian

community and therefore, he lost his right.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2904

6. Such an apprehension of the petitioners

cannot be countenanced in law in view of the principles of

law enunciated in the case of Ram Sarup Gupta (dead)

by Lrs. Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors.

reported in (1987) 2 SCC 555. The relevant paragraph of

the said judgment is paragraph No.6, which reads as

under:

"6. The question which falls for consideration is whether the respondents in their written statement have raised the necessary pleading that the license was irrevocable as contemplated by Section 60(b) of the Act and, if so, is there any evidence on record to support that plea. It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. The pleadings however should receive a

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2904

liberal construction, no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair split- ting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the substance of the pleadings to determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should be considered. Whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised the enquiry should not be so much about the form of the pleadings; instead the court must find out whether in substance the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that in spite of deficiency in the pleadings parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial on those issues by producing evidence, in that event it would not be open to a party to raise the question of absence of pleadings in appeal. In Bhagwati Prasad v. Shri Chandramaul, [1966] 1 SCR 286 a Constitution Bench of this Court considering this question observed:

"If a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication, and the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2904

would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. The general rule no doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the parties. But where the substantial matters relating to the title of both parties to the suit are touched, though indirectly or even obscurely in the issues, and evidence has been led about them, then the argument that a particular matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in every case. What the Court has to consider in dealing with such an objection is: did the parties know that the matter in question was involved in the trial, and did they lead evidence about it? If it appears that the parties did not know that the matter was in issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedly would be a different matter. To allow one party to reply upon a matter in respect of which the other party did not lead evidence and has had no opportunity to lead evidence, would introduce considerations of prejudice, and in doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do injustice to another."

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2904

7. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners

that the case of the defendants would suffer for want of

pleadings cannot be countenanced in law. With that

observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2024

stands consigned to the records.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RSP