Karnataka High Court
Sri Appa Satyapap Biranale Since ... vs Sri Maruti Balu Birnale Since Deceased ... on 12 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11974
WP No. 102285 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 102285 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. APPA SATYAPPA BIRANALE,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1. SRI. YASHAWANT APPA BIRNALE,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.
R/O. MANGUR, TQ. NIPANI,
(OLD TQ. CHIKODI), DIST. BELAGAVI.
SRI. RAMACHANDRA APPA BIRNALE,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
2. SMT. KAMAL RAMACHANDRA BIRNALE,
AGE: 45 YRS, OCC: AGRIL.,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
R/O. MANGUR, TQ: NIPANI,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
(OLD TQ: CHIKODI), DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. BABASAHEB RAMACHANDRA BIRNALE,
AGE: 47 YRS OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O. MANGUR, TQ: NIPANI,
(OLD TQ: CHIKODI), DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. ANIL RAMACHANDRA BIRNALE,
AGE: 66 YRS OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O. MANGUR, TQ: NIPANI,
(OLD TQ: CHIKODI), DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11974
WP No. 102285 of 2022
HC-KAR
5. TATOBA APPA BIRNALE,
AGE: 58 YRS OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O. MANGUR, TQ: NIPANI,
(OLD TQ: CHIKODI), DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SONU SUHEL, ADV. FOR
SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI MARUTI BALU BIRNALE,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1. SHEVANTA MARUTI BIRNALE,
AGE: 78 YRS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O. MANGUR-591215,
TQ: NIPANI, (OLD TQ- CHIKODI)
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. BALU MARUTI BIRNALE,
AGE: 60 YRS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O. MANGUR-591215,
TQ: NIPANI (OLD TQ- CHIKODI)
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SUNITA GANAPATI KOLI,
AGE: 48 YRS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O. MANGUR-591215,
TQ: NIPANI (OLD TQ- CHIKODI)
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. CHABBUTAI SHIVAJI KOLI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANGUR, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591215.
5. CHANDRAKANT BALU BIRNALE,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANGUR, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591215.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11974
WP No. 102285 of 2022
HC-KAR
SHRI. BAPU DATTU BIRNALE,
SINCE DEAD BY L.RS.
6. SMT. HOUSABAI W/O. BAPU BIRNALE,
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MANGUR, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591215.
7. SMT. MALUBAI VISHNU BIRNALE,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MANGUR, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591215.
8. SRI. AMOL VISHNU BIRNALE,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANGUR, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591215.
9. ARCHANA PRADEEP KOLI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. PATTANKADOLI, TQ: HATAKANAGALA,
DIST: KOLHAPUR-416202.
10. APARANA SAMBHAJI KOLI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. VASAGADA, TQ: KARVEER,
DIST: KOLHAPUR-416202.
11. SRI. BABU DATTU BIRNALE,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANGUR, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591215.
12. SRI. ANNAPPA APPA NEJE,
AGE 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANGUR, TQ:CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591215.
13. SMT. SHAALAN KALLAPPA KOLI,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11974
WP No. 102285 of 2022
HC-KAR
R/O. SULKOD, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST BELAGAVI-591216.
14. SMT. MALUBAI DADABA KOLI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BALAJI NAGAR, SHAHAPUR,
ICHALKARANJI, DIST: KOLHAPUR-416115.
15. SMT. RAJABAI ANANADA KOLI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. RAM NAGAR, SHAHAPUR,
ICHALKARANJI, DIST: KOLHAPUR-416115.
16. SMT. IJABAI ANNAPPA KOLI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. AKKOL, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591211.
17. PINTU ANNAPPA KOLI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YALAGUD, TQ: HATKANAGAL,
DIST: KOLHAPUR-416203.
18. RAGHU ANNAPPA KOLI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YALAGUD, TQ: HATKANAGAL,
DIST: KOLHAPUR-416203.
19. SMT. MALUTAI SADASHIV KOLI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BHOJ, TQ: CHIKODI
DIST: BELAGAVI-591263.
20. SMT. JAYSHRI ANNAPPA KOLI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. RUKDI, TQ: HATAKANAGAL,
DIST: KOLHAPUR-416118.
21. SRI. POPAT DATTU TARALE,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MANGUR, TQ: CHIKODI,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11974
WP No. 102285 of 2022
HC-KAR
DIST: BELAGAVI-591215.
22. SRI. ASHOK DATTU TARALE,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANGUR, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591215.
23. SOU. SAKUBAI W/O. BALASAHEB KOLI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SANGAVADI, TQ: KARVEER,
DIST: KOLHAPUR-416202.
24. SOU. RAJUTAI W/O. JINNAPPA KOLI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ALAS, TQ: SHIROL,
DIST: KOLHAPUR-416102.
25. SRI. JYOTIRAM APPA BIRNALE,
AGE: 36 YEARS , OCC: AGRI & SERVICE,
R/O. ICHALAKARANJI-416115,
(MAHARASHTRA STATE).
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R22;
SRI. S. B. PATIL, ADV. FOR R23 AND R24;
NOTICE TO R25 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 19/4/2022 PASSED ON IA NO.43 BY THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CHIKODI IN OS NO.176/2003 VIDE
ANNEXURE H.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11974
WP No. 102285 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
i) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari and quash
the impugned order dated 19/4/2022 passed
on IA No.43 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge
Chikodi in OS No.176/2003 vide annexure H.
ii) Issue any other writ or direction as deem fit by
this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and
equity.
2. Learned counsel Miss. Sonu Suhel appearing for
Sri. Sharad V. Magadum appearing for the petitioners submits
that the respondent filed a suit for partition and separate
possession, which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, appeal filed
by the respondents was allowed by directing them to include
three house properties and agricultural land in Survey No.43 in
the suit. It is submitted that after restoring the suit, application
for amendment was filed, which came to be allowed in the
interim order erroneously by the trial Court without appreciating
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11974
HC-KAR
that the appellate Court has directed the plaintiffs to add Survey
No.43 standing in the name of plaintiff No.1 -Maruti Balu Birnale
in the suit. However, conveniently the agricultural land bearing
Survey No.43/4 measuring 3 acres 34 guntas has been added in
the plaint as a suit schedule property, remaining other extent in
the Survey No.43 are excluded, which is impermissible. Hence,
he seeks to allow the petition by directing the
respondents/plaintiffs to add the total extent in Survey No.43 in
the suit schedule property.
3. Per contra, Sri. Ramesh I. Zirli, learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 22 submits that the proposed
amendment is a formal application filed pursuant to the direction
of the appellate Court which has been rightly allowed by the trial
Court. It is submitted that the question of including the entire
Survey number in 43 would not arise as the plaintiff No.1 has
been granted 3 acres 34 guntas in Survey No.43/4 which has
been added in the plaint as directed by the appellate Court.
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the writ petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11974
HC-KAR
meticulously perused the materials available on record. I have
given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced.
5. Sri. Maruti Balu Birnale and others filed
O.S.No.176/2003 for a relief of partition and separate
possession. The said suit came to be dismissed vide judgment
and decree dated 07.10.2005. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs
have filed regular appeal in R.A No.84/2005. The Fast Track
Court-I Chikodi vide judgment dated 30.03.2013 passed the
following order:
"ORDER
The appeal filed by the appellants U/o 41 rule 1
of CPC, IA No.4 U/o 41 rule 27 of CPC to produce
document, IA No.5 U/o 41 rule 27 of CPC to permit
them to adduce additional evidence and IA No.6 U/o
6 rule 17 R/W/Sec.151 of CPC to amend the plaint,
are hereby allowed with costs of Rs.3,000/-.
The judgment and decree passed in OS
No.176/2003, dated 7-10-2005 on the file of Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chikodi is hereby set aside.
Further trial court is directed to restore the suit
on its original file and permitted to amend the plaint
as per IA No.5 U/o 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11974
HC-KAR
Further plaintiffs are directed to include the house
property VPC No.274, 275, 276 of Mangur village
with valuation and also RS No.43 standing in the
name of plaintiff No.1 Maruti.
After amendment, the defendants have liberty
to file their additional written statement within a
month.
Thereafter the trial court is directed to frame
additional issues, if necessary, then provide
opportunity to adduce further evidence to plaintiffs
and defendants and shall disposed off the suit in
accordance with law within six months from 27-5-
2013.
Further plaintiffs shall pay the cost of
Rs.3,000/- to contesting defendants No.1(a) to
1(c)/respondent No.1 to 3, on or before 27-5-2013.
Parties are directed to appear before the trial
court on 27-5-2013 without waiting for further
notices from trial court."
6. After remand, the plaintiffs filed an application for
amendment of the plaint, which came to be allowed under the
impugned order. The appellate Court in R.A No.84/2005 has
directed the plaintiffs to include house property VPC No. 274,
275, 276 of Mangur village with a valuation and also R.S No.43
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11974
HC-KAR
standing in the name of plaintiff No.1- Maruti. Pursuant to the
said direction, application for amendment was filed by the
plaintiffs, which came to be allowed. The primary contention of
the petitioners is that the respondents have not included Survey
No.43 in its entirety, but it has included Survey No.43/4
measuring 3 acres 34 guntas only. In my considered view, the
said contention has no merit, as I have perused Form No.10 and
the RTC of Survey Nos.43/1, 43/2, 43/3 and 43/4. The aforesaid
records indicate that the deceased-Maruti Balu Birnale was
granted land measuring 3 acres 34 guntas in Survey No.43/4 by
the land Tribunal and non-inclusion of other Survey numbers in
43 by the respondents is correct as those properties are standing
in the name of different persons. Learned counsel for
respondents is right in his submission that the defendants in the
suit, got marked Ex.D12-the records of rights in respect of
Survey No.44/4 of Mangur village which further demonstrate that
the plaintiff No.1-deceased-Maruti was granted land measuring 3
acres 34 guntas in Survey No.43/4. Taking note of the aforesaid
submissions and document available on record, I am of the
considered view that the trial Court was fully justified in allowing
the application for amendment filed by the plaintiffs. I do not
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11974
HC-KAR
find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial
Court in the impugned order calling for interference in the
present petition. The present petition being devoid of merit, the
same is rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
RKM /CT-AN
