[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr. Y N Kariyappa vs Smt. Yamunamma on 16 December, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53580
WP No. 16789 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 16789 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. Y N KARIYAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1(A) MRS.Y.K.YASHODA,
W/O LATE, Y.N.KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
1(B) MRS.Y.K.RENU,
D/O LATE, Y.N.KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
1(C) MRS.Y.K.LAXMI,
D/O LATE, Y.N.KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by
KAVYA R 1(D) MR.Y.K.NEELESH,
Location: S/O LATE, Y.N.KARIYAPPA,
High court of AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
Karnataka
ALL ARE RESIDING AT MTTLUHOLE ROAD,
SHIBARA CIRCLE, HARIHARA - 577 601.
2. MR.Y.N.MALLINATHA,
S/O LATE Y.NEELAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
AUTOMOBILE DEALER,
PRASHANTH AUTOMOBILE,
METTILUHOLE ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53580
WP No. 16789 of 2021
HC-KAR
HARIHARA TOWN - 577 601.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE P1(A) TO (D))
AND:
1. SMT. YAMUNAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
SMT.RATHNAMMA,
W/O LATE Y.SANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
HOUSE HOLD,
2. MR.Y.SURENDRA,
S/O LATE Y.SANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
MANSON,
3. MR.Y.S.RAVIKUMAR,
S/O LATE Y.SANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF BEEDA SHOP,
4. SMT.Y.PADMASHREE,
D/O LATE Y.SANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
HOUSE HOLD,
5. MR.Y.S.GOPINATHA,
S/O LATE Y.SANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
MANSON,
6. KUM.Y.S.SHILPA,
D/O LATE Y.SANGAPPA,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:53580
WP No. 16789 of 2021
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.254, G DIVISION,
DODDIBEEDI, HARIHARA TOWN - 577 601.
7. SMT.Y.NINGAMMA,
SINCE DEAD NO LRS.
8. SMT.MALLAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
D/O LATE Y.NEELAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
HOUSE HOLD WORK,
3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
B BLOCK, VIDYANAGAR,
HARIHARA TOWN - 577 601.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.S.RAVI., SENIOR COUNSEL ADVOCATE FOR;
SRI.AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE R-1 TO R-6;
SRI.D.P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-8;
V/O DATED 18.11.2025 DECEASED R-7 IS D/W)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DTD.18.8.2021 PASSED IN F.D.P.NO.08/2014 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HARIHARA ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set aside the
order dated 18.08.2021 passed on I.A.No.5 in
NC: 2025:KHC:53580
HC-KAR
FDP.No.8/2014 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge,
Harihara, Davanagere District.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Decree Holders have filed I.A.No.5 in
FDP.No.8/2014 pending before the Court of Senior Civil
Judge at Harihara, Davanagere District under Order 6 Rule
17 read with Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to amend
the petition schedule property. The said application was
opposed by the contesting judgment debtors by filing
objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has
allowed I.A.No.5 and being aggrieved by the same, the
contesting judgment debtors are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having
reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that
the description of the suit schedule property was changed
during the pendency of the suit itself. However, no steps
were taken by the plaintiffs to amend the plaint schedule
property. Without amending the preliminary decree passed
NC: 2025:KHC:53580
HC-KAR
in O.S.No.74/2002, no application could have been
entertained by the Trial Court to amend the schedule of
the petition filed in FDP.No.8/2014. Accordingly, he prays
to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the contesting respondents submits that description of the
suit schedule property including the survey number was
changed because of the podi and durasti of the said lands.
Even the extent of the land has been reduced. It is under
these circumstances, necessary application to amend the
petition schedule properties was filed which has been
properly appreciated by the Trial Court. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Suit in O.S.No.74/2002 was filed seeking the
relief of partition and separate possession of the suit
schedule properties. It appears that the Trial Court had
initially dismissed the suit and the said judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.74/2002 was
NC: 2025:KHC:53580
HC-KAR
set aside by this Court in RFA No.1128/2005 and
consequently, the suit in O.S.No.74/2002 was decreed and
it was held that plaintiff No.2 and defendant Nos.1 and 2
are entitled for 1/4th share each with 1/6th out of 1/4th
share in A-schedule properties. Plaintiff Nos.1 & 3 and
defendant No.3 were held to be entitled for 1/6th out of
1/4th share in A-Schedule property. Prayer made in respect
of B, C, D and E schedule properties was rejected.
7. Subsequently, the decree holders have initiated
final decree proceedings in FDP.No.8/2014 before the Trial
Court and in the said proceedings, I.A.No.5 was filed
under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to
permit the petitioners/decree holders to amend the
schedule of the petition in final decree proceedings. In the
affidavit which is filed in support of the application, it is
stated that the earlier survey numbers and measurements
were changed due to podi and durasti of the suit schedule
properties. It is under the said circumstances, application
being filed to permit the petitioners to amend the schedule
NC: 2025:KHC:53580
HC-KAR
of the petition in the final decree proceeding. The Trial
Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter has
rightly allowed I.A.No.5. The proposed amendment will not
change the nature of the suit or the cause of action of the
suit. The final decree proceeding is a continuation of the
suit and therefore, it is not necessary to amend the
preliminary decree. Since the proposed amendment is only
consequent to the podi and durasti of the lands which are
subject matter of the preliminary decree, the Trial Court
has rightly allowed the application.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court
have repeatedly held that the Court should be liberal while
considering the applications for amendment of the plaint,
so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Under the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was
fully justified in allowing I.A.No.5 in FDP.No.8/2014, I do
not find any good reasons to interfere with the said order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:53580
HC-KAR
9. Pending I.A's, if any, do not survive for
consideration and the same are accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KVR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
