SRI. BASAVARAJ vs DR. MARUTI S/O. YAMANAPPA HARANAL

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16733
WP No. 108541 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020187292026


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO.108541 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. BASAVARAJ HARANAL
S/O YAMANAPPA HARANAL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RENUKA NILAYA, SHIVAGIRI, UNKAL,
HUBBALLI – 580 022.

2. SMT. SHASHIKALA KAMAT
W/O. SHIVANAND KAMAT,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: KALMESHWAR NAGAR, UNKAL,
HUBBALLI – 580 023.

3. SRI. SIDDAPPA LAKMAPPA PUJAR,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED GOVT. SERVANT,
R/O: H.NO. 22, SANMAN COLONY,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 023.

4. SRI. RAGAVENDRA S/O. SIDDAPPA PUJAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SANMAN COLONY, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI – 580 023.

5. DR. RASHMI M.J. W/O. RAGHUNATH M.J.,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O: H.NO. 22, SANMAN COLONY,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 022.

6. SMT. ANSUYA W/O KUBERAPPA JANGANNAVAR,
AGE: 64 YEARS, R/O: SHIVAGIRI, UNKAL,
HUBBALLI – 580 023.

7. SMT. NAINITA D/O. YAMANAPPA HARANAL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KARDIKOPPA, HUBBALLI – 560 023
…PETITIONERS












SAROJA
HANGARAKI

Digitally signed by
SAROJA HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
(BY SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16733
WP No. 108541 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020187292026

AND:
1. DR. MARUTI HARANAL
S/O. YAMANAPPA HARANAL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O: RENUKA NILAYA,
SHIVAGIRI LINGARAJ NAGAR,
UNKAL, HUBBALLI – 580 023.

2. SMT. MADHU
W/O. CHANDRAKANT JATTENNAVAR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GANDHI NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI – 580 023.

3. SMT. SAVITRI D/O. YAMANAPPA HARANAL,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GANDHI NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI – 580 023.

4. SMT. RENUKA D/O. YAMANAPPA HARANAL,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: PLOT NO. 781/60, PANCHAKSHARI NAGAR,
SHIVANAND NAGAR, NAVANAGAR,
HUBBALLI – 580 023.

5. SMT. RATNABAI D/O. YAMANAPPA HARANAL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHIVAGIRI, UNKAL, HUBBALLI – 580 023.

6. SMT. KASTURI W/O. HANMANTAPPA GAMANGATTI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BHANDIWAD VILLAGE, HUBBALLI – 580 023.

7. M/S KN MUDDEBIHAL SOLAR ENERGY PRIVATE LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 513/A,
KOHINOOR CITY, KIROL MARG,
KURLA WEST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA – 400 070.

8. SRI. RAJASHEKAR M.A.,
ST
R/O: NAMOKAR BUILDING, 1 FLOOR,
BEHIND KAMATH HOTEL, STATION ROAD,
DESAI LAYOUT, VIJAYAPUR – 586 103.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16733
WP No. 108541 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020187292026

9. THE MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA,
IFSC: UBIN0533173
LIC BUILDING, POST BOX NO. 61,
S.K. ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 020.

10. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
IFSC: SBIN0007963,
LAXMI BALKRISHNA SQUARE,
CTS NO. 2403, STATION ROAD,
HUBBALLI DHARWAD – 580 023.

11. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
ADDRESS: NAVANAGAR BRANCH,
NEAR POST OFFICE, NAVANAGAR,
HUBBALLI – 580 025.

12. THE MANAGER, SUCO BANK,
MAIN BRANCH, MAHAVEER GALLI,
HUBBALLI – 580 020.

13. GANGA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
MR. BASAVARAJ YAMANAPPA HARANAL,
R/O: RENUKA NILAYA, SHIVAGIRI,
UNKAL, HUBBALLI – 580 023.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SADASHIV S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 25/08/2026 PASSED BY III ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., HUBBALLI IN O.S.NO.519/2014 ON I.A.NO.8 AND 22
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATIONS AT
I.A. NO. 8 AND 22 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND
ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16733
WP No. 108541 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020187292026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 7 in
O.S.No.519/2024 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein on
the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli. The
said suit is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 6 seeking partition
and a declaration that the agreement of sale dated
12.06.2017, the sale deed dated 16.01.2020 and the gift
deed dated 04.02.2021 are not binding on them.

2. The petitioners herein have filed their written statement
denying the plaint averments and contending that the said
documents were executed by their father, who was the
absolute and exclusive owner of the suit properties in his
individual capacity. Thereafter, the respondents filed
applications under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil
1
Procedure (I.A.No.8) and Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC
(I.A.No.22), seeking permission to strike out paragraph 4
of the plaint and substitute it with a new paragraph, as
well as to amend the plaint by inserting paragraph 16A
and an additional prayer. The said applications came to be

1
the CPC

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16733
WP No. 108541 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020187292026

allowed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved the present
petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, drawing the attention
of this Court to the plaint in its original form, refers to
paragraph 4 and submits that it is the categoric case of the
plaintiffs that the suit properties are the self-acquired
properties of the deceased Yamanappa, the father of the
parties, and that it is on this premise that the suit for
partition and declaration was filed. Sh e refers to paragraph
15 of the original plaint and submits that the challenge to
the gift deed dated 04.02.2021 was on the premise that
the same had been obtained when Yamanappa was unwell
and admitted to the hospital.

4. Such being the admitted fact of the plaintiffs, by filing an
application under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC (I.A.No.8),
have sought deletion of paragraph 4, which enured to the
benefit of the defendants and now seek to substitute the
same by contending suit properties are ancestral
properties, which according to him not only changes the
nature of the suit but also alters its scope. As regards the
second application for amendment, he submits that the gift

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16733
WP No. 108541 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020187292026

deed now sought to be challenged by way of amendment
is of the year 2019, which is hopelessly barred by
limitation. Thus, on these three grounds he seeks for
allowing of the petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/plaintiffs submits that, in a suit for partition,
the plaintiffs are considered to be the defendants and the
defendants are considered the plaintiffs in respect of their
respective shares. The application under Order VI Rule 16
(I.A.No.8) was necessitated in the light of written
statement filed by defendant No.7, who along with the
written statement, furnished certain documents contending
that the suit properties were the ancestral properties. He
submits that the plaintiffs were unaware of the nature of
the properties, which they learnt only after filing of the
written statement was filed by defendant No.7. Therefore,
they filed the application seeking to delete paragraph 4
and to substitute with another paragraph. As regards, the
application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for
amendment seeking an additional relief, he submits that

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16733
WP No. 108541 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020187292026

the question of limitation can always be tried during the
trial.

6. Heard. Perused the records.

7. Settled principle of law, one of the criteria to be looked at
by considering the application for amendment of pleadings
is that it shall not only change nature and scope of the
suit, but shall also not take away the right which otherwise
rests with the opposite side.

8. In the instant case, original paragraph 4 of the plaint read
as under:
“4. The said Late Sri. Yamanappa Paramappa
Haranal was a government servant serving as
an Agricultural Officer at the Department of
Agriculture, Government of Karnataka and
retired from service in the year of 1994. Late
Sri. Yamanappa Paramappa Haranal had
inherited an extent of 8 acres of land in Sy No.
59/1 situated at Kolur village, Tq: Muddebihal,
Dist: Vijayapur, Karnataka from his father,
Late Sri. Paramappa Haranal and had acquired
vast amount of lands morefully described in
the Schedule mentioned below (hereinafter
referred to as Suit Schedule "A" Properties)
out of the funds from his own earnings and out
of the profits received from the agricultural
activities carried out on the inherited land.
Apart from the Suit Schedule Properties, the
wife of Sri. Yamanappa Paramappa Haranal,
Smt. Gangavva Haranal also possessed gold
ornaments weighing over 1 kg and silver
ornament weighing more than 3-4 kgs
(hereinafter referred to as Suit Schedule "B"
Properties) which is kept in the Bank locker of

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16733
WP No. 108541 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020187292026

the defendants No.10 to 13 (The details of the
accounts are yet to be ascertained by calling
records from the concerned banks).”


9. In other words, it is the specific and categoric case of the
plaintiffs that late Sri.Yamanappa Paramappa Harnal, apart
from being the Government employee, had also inherited
an extent of 8 acres of land in Sy.No.59/1 of Kolur village.
This paragraph is sought to be substituted by the following
paragraph, which reads as under:
“late Yamanappa Haranal inherited Land bearing survey
No.59/1 to the extent of 8 acers of Agricultural Land at Village
Kolur Taluka Muddebihal District Bijapur, the details of other
ancestral properties From his father Late Paramappa S/o
Somappa Haranal they are as under;


SL.No. SURVEY NO. EXTENT MUTATION DATED
1 57/1 11A.15G 6149 9/6/1978
2 59/1 8A DO DO
3 4/3K 0.27 GUNTAS DO DO
4 341/2 8A.17 GUNTAS DO DO
5 57/2 8A.39 GUNTAS DO DO
6 340/1B 1A.15 GUNTAS 2193 1964-1965
7 340/1K 1A.14 GUNTAS 2193 1964-1965
8 342/1 14A.07GUNTAS 2193 1964-1965
TOTAL 52A.34GUNTAS


The above-mentioned Agricultural lands are of my Grand
Father Late Paramappa S/o somappa Haranal who was the
original owner of the suit Schedule Properties but the Plaintiffs
have wrongly mentioned as only suit property bearing Survey
No. 59/1 of Kolur village Muddebihal Taluka District Vijaypura.
The entire above mentioned suit schedule properties are
ancestral and joint family properties. It is submitted that, out
of the income earned from the said Ancestral properties Item
No.1 to 8 of Schedule A, and ITEM NO. 9 TO 13 & B and C,

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16733
WP No. 108541 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020187292026

Properties are purchased by My Late father Yamanappa
Paramappa Haranal out of income generated from the
ancestral agricultural Lands.”


10. The proposed amendment cannot be said to be introducing
a new case or cause of action having the effect of changing
the nature and scope of the suit as contended by the
petitioners inasmuch as it is in furtherance to what was
originally pleaded.

11. Therefore, this Court is of view, that the trial Court has
committed no error in allowing the said application under
Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC (I.A.No.8), seeking deletion of
paragraph 4 and its substitution with a new paragraph.

12. As regards the application in I.A.No.22 filed under Order VI
Rule 17 of the CPC, the respondents seek to incorporate
the following averments:
“TO ADD Para 16 (a)

"Document No.13: Copy of Gift Deed dated 20.05.2019
executed by Sri. Yamnappa Haranal in favor of
Defendant No.1". The Plaintiff has also learnt that the
Defendant No. 1 got a gift deed executed by his father in
his favour with regard to Item No.1 to Item No.8 of Suit
Schedule 'A' Properties. The said gift deed was later
registered on 20.05.2019 as Document No. HBN-1-
01496-2019-10 in Book No.1 stored in C.D.No.HBND236
before the Sub Registrar, Hubali North.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16733
WP No. 108541 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020187292026

I. TO ADD PARA 12 (a)

"Similar to the aforesaid Gift Deed, in the month of May,
2019, the Defendant No.1 very connivingly, taking
advantage of the ill health of Sri Sri. Yamanappa Haranal
got a gift deed executed by his father in his favour with
regard to Item No. 1 to Item No. 8 of Suit Schedule 'A'
Properties. The said gift deed was later registered on
20.05.2019 as Document No. HBN-1-01496-2019-10 in
Book No.1 stored in C.D.No.HBND236 before the Sub
Registrar, Hubali North. Copy of the Gift dated
20.05.2019 executed by Sri. Yamnappa Haranal in favor
of Defendant No.1 is produced herewith as Document
No.13."

II. TO ADD PRAYER d (a)

DECLARE the Gift Deed executed by Sri. Yamnappa
Haranal in favor of Defendant No.1 registered on
20.05.2019 as Document No. HBN-1-01496-2019-10 in
Book No.1 stored in C.D.No.HBND236 before the Sub
Registrar, Hubali North as null and void and not binding
on the Plaintiffs"


13. Perusal of the aforesaid proposed amendment indicates
that the ground for challenging the gift deed is that the
same was executed by Sri.Yamanappa Harnal when he was
purportedly unwell. The contents of the proposed
paragraph are no different from those of paragraph 15 of
the original plaint. Therefore, no prejudice would be
caused to the defendants if the same is brought on record.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16733
WP No. 108541 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020187292026


14. However, the question of limitation is kept open to be
considered by the trial Court during the trial for the
purpose of the said relief.
dismissed
15. With the above observations, the petition is .
The order impugned is sustained.


Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE

RHR/CT: ASC
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 23