Karnataka High Court
Smt Sokkamma Since Dead By Her Lr M ... vs H N Sonnappa on 28 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
WP No. 12689 of 2021
HC-KAR
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 12689 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SOKKAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER L.R
M. BYRAPPA
S/O CHIKKAMUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560 087.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VARADARAJAN M.S, ADV.)
AND:
1 . H.N. SONNAPPA
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Digitally
R/AT HAGADUR VILLAGE
signed by K.R. PURAM HOBLI - 560 066
NANDINI M S BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 2 . H.M. KRISHNAPPA
KARNATAKA S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT HAGADUR VILLAGE
K.R. PURAM HOBLI - 560 066
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
3 . SHOBHA
W/O MANJUANTHA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
4 . KALPANA
W/O RAVI KUMAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
WP No. 12689 of 2021
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE
R/AT PATALAMMA LAYOUT
KADUGODI, KADUGODI POST
BANGALORE - 560 067.
5 . KEMPAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT HAGADUR VILLAGE
K.R. PURAM HOBLI - 560 066
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
6 . BYRAMMA
W/O ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT IMMADAHALLI VILLAGE
AND POST, VIA WHITEFILED
BANGALORE SOUTH
TALUK - 560 066.
7 . MENASAMMA
W/O SRI NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT KADADENAHALLI VILLAGE
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
8 . NANJAMMA
S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT HAGADUR VILALGE
IMMADAHALLI POST
WHITEFILED - 560 066
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
9 . LASKHMAMMA
W/O SRI KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT SHANBHOGANAHALLI
RAJANUKUNTE ROAD AND POST
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
PINCODE - 561 203.
10 . RADHAMMA
W/O SRI MUNIYAPPA
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O CHANNAKALLU
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
C.J. ABDUL KAREEM SHARIFF
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
11 . ABDUL WAHAB SHARIFF
S/O ABDUL KAREEM SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
KOGILU LAYOUT
KOGILU BELAHALLI CROSS ROAD
KOGILU, YELAHANKA
BANGALORE - 560 064.
12 . C.J. MEHABOOB
MUNNAVARA SULTHAN
S/O C.K. JAFFER SHERIFF
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
13 . AMEENABEE
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
14 . C.J. JEHRA JABBIN SULTHANA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 12 TO 14 ARE
R/AT NO.48, HAYNES ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 005.
15 . SMT. BEGUM
W/O C.J. KADAR
NAWAB SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
16 . MUNNA
D/O C.J. KADAR
NAWAB SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
17 . ALTAJ BAI
S/O C.J. KADAR NAWAB SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 15 TO 17 ARE
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
R/AT NO.48, HAYNES ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 005.
18 . N. NAGARAJA
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT GARUDACHARPALYA
K.R. PURAM HOBLI - 560 048
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
19 . P.M. NAGARAJA
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT PANATHUR VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI - 560 087
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
20 . VENKATARAMANAPPA
H/O LATE RAMAKKA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/AT HAGADUR VILLAGE
K.R. PURAM HOBLI - 560 066
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
21 . RAMESHA
S/O LATE RAMAKKA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT HAGADUR VILLAGE
K R PURAM HOBLI - 560 066
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. ANAND, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI H.S. DWARKANATH, ADV., FOR R-2;
V/O/D 15.07.2021 NOTICE TO R-3 TO R-21 IS D/W)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 09.02.2021 AND 08.03.2021 PASSED ON LAs 5 AND 6
FILED BY THE R-1 AND 2 IN FDP 26/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE V
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESEREVED FOR ORDERS ON
10.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is filed by the legal representatives of
plaintiff no.1 seeking for the following releifs.
"a. Quash / Set-aside the order dated
09.02.2021 and 08.03.2021 passed on I.As 5
& 6 filed by respondents No.1 and 2 in
F.D.P.26/2005 on the file of the V Addl. Senior
Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District
(Annexure-A)
b. Dismiss the said I.As filed by
respondents no.1 & 2 in F.D.P. 26/2005 on the
file of the V Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore
Rural District.
c. Direct the F.D.P. Court to complete the
proceedings as expeditiously as possible,
having regard to the age of the original suit as
well as that of the F.D.P. by allowing this writ
petition, in the interest of justice".
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.84/1992 seeking the
relief of partition and separate possession of their share in the
suit schedule properties. The suit was contested by the
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
defendants. The Trial Court by judgment and decree dated
28.02.2005 had decreed the suit and preliminary decree was
accordingly drawn. The said judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.84/1992 was confirmed in appeal by this Court.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs had filed FDP No.26/2005 before the
trial Court and in the said proceedings, respondent no.1 herein,
who was defendant no.5 in the suit had filed I.A.No.V to include
one property which was left out in the preliminary decree
passed in O.S.No.84/1992. He had sought for partition and
division of the said property amongst the plaintiffs and
defendants proportionately along with other suit schedule
properties. The said application was opposed by plaintiff no.1.
Similar application was filed in I.A.No.6 by respondent no.2
herein, who was defendant no.6 in the suit. The trial court vide
the order impugned allowed the said applications and being
aggrieved by the same, legal representatives of deceased
plaintiff no.1 is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having
reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, since
property which was not subject matter of the preliminary
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
decree passed in O.S.No.84/1992 is sought to be included in
the preliminary decree by filing application in the final decree
proceedings, in view of the judgment passed in the case of
CHANNAVEERAPPA GOWDA V RENUKAPPA GOWDA -
2014(3) KCCR 2214, the trial court was not justified in
allowing the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the judgment on which reliance has been placed
by the trial court is irrelevant and not applicable to the facts of
this case. The property which is now sought to be included in
the preliminary decree was sold by plaintiff no.1 on 12.03.2007
under a registered sale deed for family necessity and therefore
the same is not available for partition. He accordingly prays to
allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting
respondents who has argued in support of the impugned order
submits that the averments found in the sale deed dated
12.03.2007 would clearly go to show that the property which
was sold under the registered sale deed is a joint family
property. The plaintiffs had left out the said property in
O.S.No.84/1992 and after a decree was passed in the said suit
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
on 28.02.2005, the plaintiff no.1 had clandestinely sold the said
property for valid consideration. He submits that since property
was brought for sale after the preliminary decree was drawn in
O.S.No.84/1992, it cannot be said that the property was sold
for family necessity. He further submits that the Hon'ble
supreme Court in the case of PHOOLCHAND AND ANOTHER
V. GOPAL LAL - AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 1470 has held
that in a suit for partition multiple preliminary decrees can be
drawn to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, the trial
court was justified in allowing the application. He submits that
on the merits of the case plaintiffs have opportunity to file their
statement and counter the prayer made by the defendant.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. The undisputed facts of the case are,
O.S.No.94/1992 was filed by the petitioners herein and two
others with a prayer for granting decree of partition and
separate possession of suit schedule A, B, C and D properties,
to declare that sale deed dated 02.09.1991 executed in favour
of defendants no.12 and 13 and sale deed dated 02.09.1991 in
favour of defendant nos.7 to 11 were not binding on plaintiffs
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
and also for mesne profits. The said suit was decreed insofar as
the first two prayers are concerned and was dismissed in
respect of the prayer for mesne profits. The challenge made to
the said judgment and decree by the defendants, in RFA
No.777/2005 and RFA NO.778/2005 were rejected by this
Court and thereafter FDP.No.26/2005 was initiated before the
Trial Court by the plaintiffs.
7. Respondent no.1 and 2 herein who were the
defendant nos.5 and 6 in O.S.No.84/1992 had filed two
separate applications in FDP No.26/2005 with a prayer to
include property bearing survey No.78/2 measuring 2 acres 10
guntas situated at Siddapura village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluka in the preliminary decree and had sought for
partition and separate possession of the said property in terms
of judgment and decree passed in O.S.84/1992. The said
applications were opposed by the plaintiffs contending that if
the property in question was available for partition, nothing
prevented the defendants from bringing the said fact to the
notice of trial Court during the pendency of the suit or
thereafter to the notice of this Court. It was also contended
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
that the purchaser of the land in question, which was sold in
the year 2007 is not a party to the proceedings.
8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners
property in question was sold under the registered sale deed
dated 12.03.2007, whereas preliminary decree in O.S.84/1992
was passed on 28.02.2005. Therefore, as rightly contended by
the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, sale of
property in question cannot be considered as a sale for the
necessity of the family. In the preamble of the sale deed dated
12.3.2007 under which the plaintiffs have sold the property in
question in favour of one Sri Lakshmana Raju, it is clearly
stated that the property in question was owned by
Hanumanthappa aliyas Appanna, who is the son of the
propositus of the family, namely Chikka Hanumanthappa.
Therefore, there is prima-facie material to show that the land in
question was a joint family property. However, the plaintiffs
had not brought the said property for partition in
O.S.No.84/1992 and on the other hand after a preliminary
decree was drawn in O.S. No.84/1992, the property in question
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
has been sold by plaintiff no.1 under a registered sale deed in
favour of third party for valid sale consideration.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
PHOOLCHAND (supra) at paragraph no.7 has observed as
follows:
"7. We are of opinion that there is nothing in
the Code of Civil Procedure which prohibits the
passing of more than one preliminary decree if
circumstances justify the same and that it may be
necessary to do so particularly in partition suits
when after the preliminary decree some parties
die and shares of other parties are thereby
augmented. We have already said that it is not
disputed that in partition suits the court can do so
even after the preliminary decree is passed. It
would in our opinion be convenient to the court
and advantageous to the parties, specially in
partition suits, to have disputed rights finally
settled and 8 specification of shares in the
preliminary decree varied before a final decree is
prepared. If this is done, there is a clear
determination of the rights of parties to the suit
on the question in dispute and we see no difficulty
in holding that in such cases there is a decree
deciding these disputed rights; if so, there is no
reason why a second preliminary decree
correcting the shares in a partition suit cannot be
passed by the court. So far therefore as partition
suits are concerned we have no doubt that if an
event transpires after the preliminary decree
which necessitates a change in shares, the court
can and should do so; and if there is a dispute in
that behalf, the order of the court deciding that
dispute and making variation in shares specified
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
in the preliminary decree already passed is a
decree in itself which would be liable to appeal.
We should however like to point out that what we
are saying must be confined to partition suits, for
we are not concerned in the present appeal with
other kinds of suits in which also preliminary and
final decrees are passed. There is no prohibition in
the Code of Civil Procedure against passing a
second preliminary decree in such circumstances
and we do not see why we should rule out a
second preliminary decree in such circumstances
only on the ground that the Code of Civil
Procedure does not contemplate such a
possibility. In any case if two views are possible-
and obviously this is so because the High Courts
have differed on the question-we would prefer the
view taken by the High Courts which hold that a
second preliminary decree can be passed,
particularly in partition suits where parties have
died after the preliminary decree and shares
specified in the preliminary decree have to be
adjusted. We see no reason why in such a case if
there is dispute, it should not be decided by the
court which passed the preliminary decree, for it
must not be forgotten that the suit is not over till
the final decree is passed and the court has
jurisdiction to decide all disputes that may arise
after the preliminary decree, particularly in a
partition suit due to deaths of some of the parties.
Whether there can be more than one final decree
does not arise in the present appeal and on that
we express no opinion. We therefore hold that in
the circumstances of this case it was open to the
court to draw up a fresh preliminary decree as
two of the parties had died after the preliminary
decree and before the final decree was passed.
Further as there was dispute between the
surviving parties as to devolution of the shares of
the parties who were dead and that dispute was
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
decided by the trial court in the present case and
thereafter the preliminary decree already passed
was amended, the decision amounted to a decree
and was liable to appeal. We therefore agree with
the view taken by the High Court that in such
circumstances a second preliminary decree can be
passed in partition suits by which the shares
allotted in the preliminary decree already passed
can be amended and if there is dispute between
surviving parties in that behalf and that dispute is
decided the decision amounts to a decree. We
should however like to make it clear that this can
only be done so long as the final decree has not
been passed. We therefore reject this contention
of the appellant."
10. In the case of GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA
AND ANR V. CHAKIRIYANADI AND ANR - (2011) 9 SCC
788 reiterating the principles laid down in the case of
PHOOLCHAND (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court at
paragraph no.14 has observed as follows:
"14. A preliminary decree determines the rights
and interests of the parties. The suit for partition is
not disposed of by passing of the preliminary decree. It
is by a final decree that the immovable property of
joint Hindu family is partitioned by metes and bounds.
After the passing of the preliminary decree, the suit
continues until the final decree is passed. If in the
interregnum i.e. after passing of the preliminary
decree and before the final decree is passed, the
events and supervening circumstances occur
necessitating change in shares, there is no impediment
for the court to amend the preliminary decree or pass
another preliminary decree redetermining the rights
and interests of the parties having regard to the
changed situation".
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
11. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
CHANNAVEERAPPA GOWDA (supra) having referred to the
judgment in the case of PHOOLCHAND (supra) and GANDURI
(supra) in paragraph no.13 has observed as follows:
"13. However, this principle cannot be extended
to include a property which was not the subject matter
of the suit, at the time of passing of the preliminary
decree. Variation of shares already declared in the
property which is the subject matter of the suit is
totally different from varying the subject matter of the
suit. The reason being that what is the share to which
a party to a suit is entitled to in law is purely a
question of law, whereas a share in a property is
dependent on the nature of the property which is
purely a question of fact, which is to be decided on the
facts and circumstances of the case based on the
evidence adduced. Therefore, once a preliminary
decree is passed in respect of the subject matter of the
suit, question of including or adding a property to the
subject matter of the suit subsequently and claiming a
share in respect of the property so included or added is
not permissible in law. In respect of the said property
a separate suit is maintainable, if sufficient cause is
shown for its exclusion in the earlier suit for partition.
However, on the ground final decree is not yet passed,
the said property cannot be included in the suit after
passing of the preliminary decree or a second
preliminary decree cannot be passed nor can it be the
subject matter of final decree proceedings. Further, if a
property which was not the subject matter of a suit,
were to be included at the stage of Final Decree
Proceedings, evidence has to be recorded to decide
whether it is a Joint Family Property or not and if the
parties to the suit have share therein or not. By chance
if a property belonging to the Joint family could not be
included in the suit, a second suit for partition of the
property so left out is not maintainable. But if there
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
are acceptable reasons for not including the property in
the suit, a second suit for its partition would still be
maintainable. The Court would also have no such
power even U/s 153 of CPC to include a property suo
moto. A suit ordinarily means a Civil proceeding
instituted by presenting a plaint".
12. In the case of CHANNAVEERAPPA GOWDA
(supra) it has been observed that by chance if a property
belonging to the joint family property could not be included in
the suit, a second suit for partition of the so left out property is
not maintainable. If there are acceptable reasons for not
including the property in the suit, a second suit for partition
would still be maintainable. Therefore, for maintaining a second
suit, the party approaching the Court must prove that, for
acceptable reasons the property in the suit was not included in
the earlier suit.
13. In the case on hand, defendant nos.5 and 6 who
have filed applications in I.A.No.V and VI have contented that
property in question was left out in the suit for partition filed by
the plaintiffs and after a preliminary decree was passed in the
suit, the property in question has been brought for sale by the
plaintiff no.1. According to the learned counsel for petitioners
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
sale was for family necessity and thereby it is admitted that the
property in question was a joint family property.
14. In the case of SHEO PUJAN RAI & ORS. V. RAM
EKBAL RAI & ORS - AIR 2008 PATNA 50, the High Court of
Patna has held that some properties which had been left out in
the suit filed for relief of partition and separate possession in
which a preliminary decree is drawn, could be included in the
schedule of the final decree proceedings, if the properties are
covered under the same set of facts on which the learned Trial
Court had passed a preliminary decree. It is made clear that
such inclusion would neither change the nature of suit nor it
would take the other side by surprise, and on the other hand,
such addition deems necessary to settle the controversy as a
whole and prevent multiplicity of suits and proceedings.
Therefore, it is held that in such an event incorporation of the
left out properties in the schedule appended to the final decree
proceedings in terms of order VI rule 17 of CPC is proper.
Similar view has been taken by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in the case of SOMEREDDI BURRAYYA V.
SOMIREDDI ATCHAYYAMMA - AIR 1959 AP 26.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
15. In the case of SMT. JANAKI V. SMT. LALITHA &
ORS - 2016 AIR CC 230 (KAR) - (2015) 5 KCCR 455 the
point no.(2) that was considered by a coordinate bench of this
Court reads as follows :-
"1) XXX
2) Whether the property or properties
could be added to the schedule of the final
decree proceedings which had not been the
subject matter of the suit filed for partition
and separate possession?
Considering the judgment of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in the case of SOMEREDDI BURRAYYA (supra) the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of PHOOLCHAND
(supra) and the judgment of High Court of Patna in the case of
SHEO PUJAN RAI (supra) this Court in the case of SMT.
JANAKI (supra) at paragraph nos.20 to 23 had answered point
no.2 as follows:
"20. Point no.(2): If the court dealing with a
suit for partition can conclusively decide the rights
of the parties on the basis of the shares already
declared in the preliminary decree in terms of
order 20 Rule 18(2) of CPC and when court can
draw any number of preliminary decrees after the
first preliminary decree is passed in suit for
partition, inclusion of any property left out earlier
cannot be called as incorrect or improper. Parties
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
opposing such inclusion will be given an
opportunity to file written statement as against
such inclusion and the court is expected to pass
one more preliminary decree in respect of
property newly included deciding as to whether
the property is liable for partition and if so what
exactly is the share of the parties.
21. Apart from this, court can also consider
other aspects like the inclusion being hit by
provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC or estoppel
and limitation if property in question had been
alienated to third party. It is not as though that
the inclusion of a property in the schedule by way
of amendment, would automatically entitle the
party who has included that property seeking
share. Such an inclusion is always subject to a full
fledged trial based on the pleadings of the parties
and another preliminary decree which is
appealable in terms of Section 96 of CPC read
with Section 41 of CPC.
22. In paragraph 7 of the decision rendered
in Phoolchand's case, it is held that passing of
more than one preliminary decree is permissible if
circumstances justify the same. It is further held
that so far as partition of suits are concerned, the
court has got powers to alter the change in share
if an event transpires after the preliminary
decree. Though Apex Court was concerned with
the alternation of the shares because of death of
one of the parties in Phoolchand's case, the High
Court of Patna in the case of Shub Karan and the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of
Somereddi have relied upon the decision of
Phoolchand for amplifying that even if a property
is left out in the preliminary decree can be the
subject matter in the final decree proceedings in
order to avoid multiplicity of suits and there could
be another decree after a full-fledged trial.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
23. In the present case, the case of the
plaintiff is that she was unaware of the property
held by her father and by oversight she had
forgotten to include 3.30 acres of land in the
schedule appended to the plaint filed by her
earlier. Contesting defendant No.1 who is
respondent No.1 herein has admitted in
unequivocal terms that the property now sought
to be included belonged to her father as well as
the father of plaintiff and that it was his absolute
property and the same has been given to her. If
the property in question belonged to the father of
the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and if there was
no division, both of them would be entitled to
share. Whether the father of the defendant No.1
has conveyed the property to defendant No.1 or
whether the property now sought to be included
has been bequeathed in favour of plaintiff and
such other contentious issues will have to be
decided after recording evidence of the parties. If
the defendant No.1 has any valid defence to be
raised as against the inclusion, nothing comes in
the way of defendant No.1 to file objections in the
form of written statement, on the basis of which,
proper issues will have to be framed and evidence
will have to be recorded and the court has to give
its finding on the nature of the property and such
other relevant issues. Therefore, inclusion of left
out properties in the final decree proceedings is
justified and proper There is no reason to take a
view contrary to the one taken by the Hon'ble
High court of Patna in Sheo Punja Rai's case in
which the decision in the case of Poolchand is
referred to and relied upon. Hence point no.(2) is
answered in the affirmative".
16. In the case of S SATNAM SINGH AND ORS. V.
SURENDER KAUR AND ANR. - (2009) 2 SCC 562, the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court had erred
in holding that additional properties cannot be added for
partition in the preliminary decree after the preliminary decree
attained finality in terms of Section 97 of the Code. It was
observed in the said case that Section 97 of the Code would not
be a bar to file an application for amendment of decree.
17. In the present case, one of the property which was
left out in the earlier suit was sought to be included in the
schedule appended to the final decree proceedings. In the
preamble of the sale deed under which the property in question
was sold, it is clearly stated that property belonged to one
Hanumanthappa aliyas Appanna, who is the son of propositus
of the family namely Chikka Hanumanthappa. The said property
is sold after the preliminary decree was passed in
O.S.No.84/1992 and according to the petitioners sale was for
family necessity. By raising such contention, petitioners have
admitted that property in question is a joint family property and
if that is so, they are required to prove the same. The plaintiffs
have an opportunity before the trial Court to file their
statement opposing the partition of the property in question
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42852
HC-KAR
and the Court will be obliged to frame issue on the basis of
pleadings of the parties and thereafter give its finding based on
the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
18. In the case of PHOOLCHAND (supra) the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that any number of preliminary
decrees can be passed in a suit for partition and therefore, I do
not find any illegality or irregularity in the event a property
which is left out in the earlier suit is sought to be partitioned by
including the same in the final decree proceeding, for which
separate preliminary decree can be drawn which is subject to
an appeal as provided under section 96 of CPC. This would not
only serve the ends of justice but would also avoid multiplicity
of proceedings. Therefore, I am of the opinion that trial Court
was fully justified in allowing I.A.No.V and VI vide the order
impugned. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to
entertain the writ petition.
19. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
