[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Tharamani vs Sri. Prashanth K on 25 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16837
WP No. 19574 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 19574 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.THARAMANI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
W/O D. SAMPATH KUMR
D/O LATE H V NAGAPPA
R/O NO.80, OPP NIRAMAL GYAN SCHOOL
NEW BANK COLONY, KONANAKUNTE
BENGALURU - 560 062.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. PRASHANTH K
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY H N
Digitally R/AT DEVANGA KALLUR VILLAGE
signed by
CHAITHANYA KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
K TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
Location:
HIGH COURT 2. SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR
OF MAJOR
KARNATAKA S/O D SAMPATH KUMAR
NO.11, 1ST MAIN
BHUVANESHWARINAGAR MAIN ROAD
MANORAYANA PALYA
R T NAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 032.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16837
WP No. 19574 of 2021
HC-KAR
3. SMT. HEMASHRI
MAJOR
D/O D SAMPATH KUMAR
BDA PLOT NO.1496
2ND BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 050.
4. SMT. LALITHAMMA
MAJOR
W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY H N
R/AT DEVANGA KALLUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHARMESH A, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
vide order dated 16.11.2021
Notice to R2 to R4 stands waived)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 22.09.2021 PASSED BY THE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU ON I.A.NO.7 IN
O.S.NO.6796/2015 (CCH-66) AS PER ANNEXURE-A, ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:16837
WP No. 19574 of 2021
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
22.09.2021 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.6796 of 2015 by
the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (for short, 'the Trial Court').
2. Sri.Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
defendant No.1 in a suit filed by Respondent No.1 for
partition and separate possession. It is submitted that the
petitioner filed detailed written statement taking her stand
in the suit and later filed an application for amendment of
the written statement with intention to provide better
particulars in the written statement, which came to be
rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the
proposed amendment would take away the admissions in
the written statement, it substantially changes the
defence, the proposed amendment is sought without due
diligence and that it is sought after a period of five years.
NC: 2026:KHC:16837
HC-KAR
It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner has
sold schedule 'A' property, gifted schedule 'B' to 'F'
properties and bequeathed schedule 'G' properties, which
she intends to incorporate in the written statement as
better particulars for complete adjudication of the suit. It
is also submitted that the affidavit accompanying the
application states that by inadvertence, the dates of Gift
Deed and Will is not referred and by allowing the
application, no prejudice would be caused to the other
side. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition.
3. Per contra, Sri.Dharmesh.A., learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1 supports the impugned
order of the Trial Court and submits that the petitioner
filed written statement on 02.11.2015 and the proposed
amendment to the said written statement is filed in the
year 2020 and the petitioner was very well aware about
the Sale Deed, Gift Deed and alleged Will and
conveniently, those facts were suppressed before the Trial
Court and when the matter was posted for defendants'
NC: 2026:KHC:16837
HC-KAR
evidence, an application came to be moved for
amendment of the written statement. It is further
submitted that filing of the application is without due
diligence and with the enormous delay, which has been
rightly considered by the Trial Court and defendant No.1
has taken specific stand in the written statement that the
father of defendant No.1, H.V.Nagappa has acquired the
properties and they are his self-acquired properties and
now, by way of amendment, the petitioner is trying to
state that the properties are her self-acquired properties.
More particularly, with regard to the suit schedule 'A'
property and such an admission cannot be allowed to
overcome by way of amendment. Hence, he seeks to
dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard the arguments on both side and perused
the material available on record.
5. The petitioner, who is defendant No.1 in O.S.
No.6796 of 2015 filed an application under Order VI Rule
NC: 2026:KHC:16837
HC-KAR
17 of CPC seeking to amend the written statement. The
said application was filed on 03.03.2020. Admittedly, the
written statement was filed by defendant No.1 on
02.11.2015. The perusal of the proposed amendment
indicates that defendant No.1 intends to bring certain facts
on record, i.e., father of defendant No.1, Sri.H.V.Nagappa
sold schedule 'A' property on 24.01.1998, gifted schedule
'B' to 'F' properties on 07.05.2010 and bequeathed
schedule 'G' property by registered Will dated 02.08.2013.
It is not in dispute that these facts were within the
knowledge of defendant No.1 when the written statement
was filed. The perusal of the written statement filed by
defendant No.1 on 02.11.2015 at paragraph Nos.5 and 15
makes a reference with regard to the fact that
Sri.H.V.Nagappa during his lifetime has transferred some
properties to his daughter, i.e., defendant No.1 through
Gift Deed and some properties were given to his daughter-
in-law, i.e., defendant No.4 who is the mother of the
plaintiff. In paragraph No.15, the defendant denied the
NC: 2026:KHC:16837
HC-KAR
averments made in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the plaint
and there is a reference with regard to the Gift Deed. The
co-joint reading of paragraph Nos.9 and 15 makes it clear
that defendant No.1/petitioner herein intends to state that
Sri.H.V.Nagappa was the owner of the property in question
and those are the self-acquired properties of
Sri.H.V.Nagappa and he sold/gifted and bequeathed
schedule 'A' to 'G' properties in her favour though it is not
specifically stated in paragraph Nos.5 and 15 of the
written statement. The proposed amendment in my
considered view are nothing but furnishing the better
particulars and detailing of the facts already narrated in
paragraph Nos.5 and 15 of the written statement. The
Trial Court under the impugned order has come to the
conclusion that the proposed amendment would
completely change the defence and take away the
admission is a perverse finding as the defendant No.1 is
only furnishing better particulars. In my considered view,
allowing the application for amendment will not come in
NC: 2026:KHC:16837
HC-KAR
the way of complete adjudication of the dispute between
the parties as the proposed amendment would aid the
Trial Court in granting or refusing the relief sought for in
the plaint. It is open for the plaintiff to raise all the
available contentions on law and facts during the course of
trial. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that
the application is filed belatedly and which has resulted in
delay in concluding the proceedings. Hence, the
application is required to be allowed on terms.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 22.09.2021 passed on I.A.No.7
in O.S.No.6796 of 2015 by the LXV Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City
(CCJ-66) is set aside.
iii) Consequently, I.A.No.7 is allowed, subject to
the condition that defendant No.1 shall pay cost
NC: 2026:KHC:16837
HC-KAR
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to
the plaintiff before the next date of hearing.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
DH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
