Karnataka High Court
Sri. M. B. Yogananda vs Sri. Mooguregowda on 29 July, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29735
WP No. 3145 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 3145 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M. B. YOGANANDA
S/O LATE M C BILIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YERAS
2. SRI M B MANJUNATH
S/O LATE M C BILIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YERAS
3. SRI M B LOKESH
S/O LATE M C BILIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDENTS OF MOODYA VILLAGE
Digitally signed
by JUANITA KOPPA HOBLI-571 425
THEJESWINI MADDUR TALUK
Location: HIGH MANDYA DISTRICT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANANDA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MOOGUREGOWDA
S/O CHIKKATHAMMEGOWDA
@ CHIKKEGOWDA @
CHIKKATHAMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29735
WP No. 3145 of 2021
RESIDING AT MOODYA VILLAGE
KOPPA HOBLI-571 425
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
RELATING TO THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.23 IN
O.S.NO.18/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR PERUSE THE SAME, HEAR THE
PETITIONERS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2020
PASSED ON I.A.NO.23 IN O.S.NO.18/2010 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR AT
ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are defendants No.5 to 7 in
O.S.No.18/2010. The suit was filed by the respondents
seeking partition and separate possession claiming 1/8th
share in the suit schedule properties. The petitioners are
aggrieved of the rejection of their application in I.A.No.23,
which they had filed seeking amendment of the written
statement.
NC: 2024:KHC:29735
2. In the application filed by the petitioners, they
were seeking to amend and add a particular word in the
written statement. In paragraph No.8 where it read
"these defendants submits that the suit schedule
properties originally are the ancestral and joint family
properties", they sought to add the word 'not', before the
ancestral and joint family properties. In essence, it is
sought to be contended by the petitioners that in the
written statement the defendants have clearly stated that
the suit schedule properties were partitioned after the
plaintiff was given in adoption. Nevertheless, the plaintiff
was also allotted a portion of the properties,
notwithstanding the fact that he was given in adoption. It
is therefore sought to be contended that after the prior
partition, the suit schedule properties no more remained
as ancestral and joint family properties and therefore they
are seeking to add word 'not' before the ancestral joint
family property.
NC: 2024:KHC:29735
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents
and on perusing the petition papers, including the
impugned order, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the court has to consider the merits of the case on
the basis of the evidence that would be lead by the
parties. Courts cannot hold the parties by a stray
sentence, this is also well settled principles of law. In that
view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of,
with a direction to the trial court to pass a judgment on
the basis of the evidence that would be tendered by the
parties and having regard to the complete picture that the
plaint and the written statement would give and not get
carried away by stray sentence.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
KLY
CT: JL
