Karnataka High Court
Smt Sheela vs Smt C K Muthulaxmamma on 27 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42665
WP No. 8367 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 8367 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHEELA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O LATE C.K. PRAKASH.
2. C.K, PRATHAPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O LATE C.K. PRAKASH.
3. SMT. LEELAVATHY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O BALAHCANDRA
D/O C. KALEEREGOWDA
RESIDING AT NO.207
H.S.R. LAYOUT, AREHALLI
BANGALORE.
Digitally signed 4. C.K. CHANNAVEEREGOWDA
by NANDINI M AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S
S/O LATE C. KALEEREGOWDA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF RESIDENTS OF CHANNASANDRA
KARNATAKA VILLAGE, KASBA HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK, KASABA HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVARAMU H.C, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. C.K. MUTHULAXMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
D/O LATE C. KALEEREGOWDA AND
W/O B. APPAJIGOWDA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42665
WP No. 8367 of 2022
HC-KAR
2. KALEEREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
D/O LATE C KALEEREGOWDA
RESIDENT NOs 1 & 2 ARE
RESIDENTS OF CHANNASANDRA
VILLAGE, KASBA HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.
3. SMT. SHARADA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
W/O M C BOREGOWDA
D/O LATE C KALEEREGOWDA
REISIDNG AT DOOR NO.593
4TH CROSS 8TH MAIN
B H C S LAYOUT PADMANABHANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 032.
4. SMT. MAMATHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
W/O LATE C K NAGARAJU
5. SMT. K RASHMU
AGED AVBOUT 30 YEARS
D/O LATE C.K NAGARAJU
RESPONDENT Nos 4 & 5
ARE RESIDENTS OF
CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE
KASBA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.
6. APOORVA CHANDRA
MAJOR
PROPRIETOR
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
TO PETITIONERS
POORNACHANDRA PRINTING PRESS
BAZAAR STREET MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.
7. GANESH
MAJOR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:42665
WP No. 8367 of 2022
HC-KAR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
PROPRIETOR
GANESH TEXTILES, BAZAAR STREET
MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
8. M. NAGARAJU
MAJOR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
PROPRIETOR
SIDDARAMESHWARA FURNITURES
BAZAAR STREET, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.
9. KRISHNA
MAJOR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
PROPRIETOR
LAKSHMU FANCY STORES
BAZAAR STREET, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI L. RAJANNA, ADV., FOR R-2;
SRI K.P BHUVAN, ADV., FOR R-3;
SRI KIRAN KUMAR D.K, ADV., R-4;
R-1, R-7 TO R-9 SERVED UNDREPRESENTED;
V/O/D 05.05.2023, NOTICE TO R-5 & R-6 IS H/S)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER
DTD 02.12.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.XLVI TO XLVIII IN OS
NO.12/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC MADDUR MARKED AS ANNEXURE-J BY ISSUING A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:42665
WP No. 8367 of 2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendants nos.2, 3, 7 & 8 are before this Court in this
writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
with a prayer to set aside the common order dated 02.12.2021
passed on IA.Nos.46, 47 & 48 in O.S.No.12/2010 by the Court
of Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Maddur, Mandya District.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. O.S.No.12/2010 was filed with a prayer for partition and
separate possession of 1/7th share of the plaintiffs in the suit
schedule properties and also for mesne profits. In the said suit,
defendant no.8 had filed written statement and it appears that
defendant no.4 who is the sister of defendant no.8 had filed a
memo adopting the written statement of defendant no.8.
Subsequently, additional written statement was also filed by
defendant no.8, and thereafter another memo was filed on
behalf of defendant no.4 adopting the additional written
statement filed by defendant no.8. Subsequently, IA no.46 was
filed by defendant no.4 under Section 151 of CPC with a prayer
to permit defendant no.4 to withdraw the memo dated
NC: 2025:KHC:42665
HC-KAR
18.06.2013 and the memo dated 12.11.2019 under which her
advocate had adopted the written statement and the additional
written statement filed by defendant no.8 and permit defendant
no.4 to file a separate written statement. Thereafter, IA no.47
was filed seeking permission to file fresh written statement,
and IA no.48 was filed under Section 151 CPC on behalf of
defendant no.4 to reject the cross-examination done by her
earlier counsel. The said applications were opposed by
defendant nos.2, 3, 7 & 8 by filing objections.
4. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has allowed IA
no.46 and has permitted defendant no.4 to withdraw the
memos filed. IA no.47 was allowed permitting defendant no.4
to file a fresh written statement, and IA no.48 was allowed in
part permitting defendant no.4 to cross-examine the concerned
witnesses by filing necessary application in that regard. Being
agreed by the same, petitioners herein who are defendant
nos.2, 3, 7 & 8 are before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition submits, that application was filed
belatedly at the stage when the suit was posted for judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC:42665
HC-KAR
Defendant no.4 wants to wriggle out from the admissions made
by her. If this is permitted, parties are required to go for a
fresh trial in the case which would cause untold hardship to
them.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for defendant no.4
submits that defendant no.8 is the younger brother of
defendant no. 4. Except signing the vakalath, defendant no.4
has not signed any other document including the memos under
which the written statement filed by defendant no.8 were
adopted by her Counsel. Even the settlement reported to the
Court was not signed by defendant no.4. After the Trial Court
appreciated these aspects of the matter, it has rejected the
compromise petition that was submitted to the court. He
submits that property bearing No.634/1 measuring 20 guntas
of Maddur village, originally belonged to the mother of
defendant no.4 and the same was not the subject matter of the
suit schedule and in the compromise petition even the said
property was included. In the additional written statement
which was filed on behalf of defendant no.8, he has made a
statement that his mother had gifted the said property,
NC: 2025:KHC:42665
HC-KAR
whereas the mother actually has executed a Will in favour of
defendant no.4, in respect of the said property and the said
property is in the possession and enjoyment of defendant no.4.
It is under these circumstances, she was constrained to file a
separate written statement. The Trial Court having appreciated
these aspects of the matter, has rightly allowed the prayers
made in IA nos.46, 47 & 48. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss
the petition.
7. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that
defendant nos.8 & 4 were represented by the same advocate.
According to defendant no.4, at the request of her younger
brother - defendant no.8, she had signed the vakalath and had
handed over the same to him, who in turn had engaged the
services of an advocate on their behalf. Written statement is
filed by defendant no.8 initially on 27.09.2010. On the same
day, a memo was also filed on behalf of defendant no.4 by her
advocate, adopting the written statement of defendant no.8.
Defendant no.4 is not a signatory to the said memo.
Subsequently, an additional written statement was filed by
defendant no.8 and the additional written statement was also
NC: 2025:KHC:42665
HC-KAR
adopted by filing a memo on behalf of defendant no.4, which
was also not signed by her.
8. According to defendant no.4, the aforesaid property
bearing No.634/1 which belongs to her mother was bequeathed
in her favour by her mother and she is in possession and
enjoyment of the same and the revenue records of the land are
also transferred in her name. However, a statement is found in
the additional written statement of defendant no.8 that the said
property has been gifted by his mother in his favour during her
lifetime and accordingly he is in possession and enjoyment of
the said property as absolute owner of the same. It appears
that in the compromise petition that was filed by the parties,
the aforesaid property which is not the subject matter of the
suit schedule was also included and after coming to know about
the same, defendant no.4 and some other defendants had
opposed the compromise petition and the Trial Court having
appreciated the aforesaid aspects, has rejected the compromise
petition by order dated 19.08.2021. It is under these
circumstances, a prayer is made by the defendant no.4 to file a
separate written statement and defend her case. She has also
NC: 2025:KHC:42665
HC-KAR
filed IA no.46 with a prayer to permit her to withdraw the
memo dated 18.06.2013 and the memo dated 12.11.2019
under which her advocate had adopted the written statement
and the additional written statement filed by defendant no.8. IA
no.47 was filed seeking permission to file fresh written
statement, and IA no.48 was filed to reject the cross-
examination done by her earlier counsel.
9. The Trial Court having appreciated that defendant was
totally kept in dark about the contents of the written
statement, additional written statement and the compromise
petition which was filed in the suit, has permitted to withdraw
the memos. Insofar as the prayer made in IA no.47 is
concerned, the same is allowed permitting defendant no.4 to
file a fresh written statement. IA no.48 is allowed in part
permitting defendant no.4 to cross-examine the concerned
witnesses by filing necessary applications in that regard.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders do not
suffer from any illegality or irregularity which calls for
interference by this Court. I do not find any good ground to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42665
HC-KAR
entertain this petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
