SMT ANJINAMMA W/O HANUMANTAPPA vs SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH GOWDA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT PETITION NO.100038 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ANJINAMMA
W/O. HANUMANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O. KURIGANURU VILLAGE,
SIRAGUPPA TALUKA, BELLARY-583120.
2. SRI. KURUVALI VENKAPPA
S/O. SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O. NEAR KADABASAVESHWARA TEMPLE,
SIRIGUPPA TALUK, BELLARY-583120.
3. SRI. MOOLEMANE HANUMANTAPPA
S/O. BHEEMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O. KURIGANURU VILLAGE,
SIRAGUPPA TALUKA, BELLARY-583120.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.V.M.SHEELAVANT AND
SRI.VINAY S.KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O. LATE VENKATESH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O. NEAR ANJENEYA TEMPLE,
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI
H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.11.04
11:34:41 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
BUDUGUPPA, BELLARY-583120.
2. SRI. K.NAGARAJA
S/O. LATE VENKATESH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O. KURIGANURU, BUDUGUPPA,
SIRAGUPPA, BELLARY-583120.
3. SRI. K.SURESH
S/O. LATE VENKATESH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O. KURIGANURU BUDUGUPPA,
SIRAGUPPA, BELLARY-583120.
4. SMT. GEETHA W/O. SRI. RANGANNA
D/O. LATE VENKATESH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O. NO.4, ANJENEYA TEMPLE,
SINDHANUR-584128.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH B.CHIGARI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED.
19.09.2025 PASSED BY II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BALLARI
SITTING AT SIRUGUPPA ON IA NO. IV IN OS NO.300/2023
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
ORAL ORDER
1. The captioned writ petition is filed by the
defendants challenging the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by
the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari, sitting at
Siruguppa (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’, for short)
allowing I.A.No.IV filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘CPC’, for short), in O.S. No.300/2023 by the
plaintiffs/respondents seeking to amend the plaint.
2. For convenience , the parties are referred to as per
their rank before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs filed
the suit for declaration and injunction against the
defendants/petitioners claiming that land bearing Sy.Nos.174A,
174B, 174D and 174F measuring 2.68 acres, 2.50 acres and
2.96 acres and 4.42 acres totally measuring 12.56 acres
situated at Kuriganur village, Siriguppa taluk, Bellary district
was granted by the Government of Karnataka by way of inam
certificate dated 31.05.1986 to one late Venkatesh Gowda-
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
st
husband of 1 plaintiff and land bearing Sy.No.174C measuring
1.74 acres was acquired by one late Hanumantappa Gowda,
st
father -in-law of the 1 plaintiff. They further contended that,
after demise of Venkatesh Gowda on 04.01.2013, the plaintiffs
were in peaceful possession of the properties and had also
obtained encumbrance certificate from 01.04.1993 to
16.06.2023. When the defendants tried to dispossess the
st
plaintiffs, 1 defendant claimed right over the properties by
representing that she is the wife of Hanumanthappa, elder
st
sister of 1 plaintiff’s husband. Immediately, they verified the
st
revenue records and they came to know that name of the 1
defendant was reflecting by creating a fake partition deed
st
between herself and husband of 1 plaintiff late Venkatesh
Gowda. Hence, filed a suit.
4. After service of summons, the defendants appeared
and filed written statement contending that the plaintiffs and
the defendants are close relatives and further denied the
averments made in the plaint. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 adopted
the written statement filed by defendant No.1.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
5. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed
an application in I.A. No.IV under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC
seeking to amend the plaint by adding the following paras:
“APPLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
/PLAINTIFF NO.3 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W
SECTION 151 OF CPC
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit,
it is prayed that the Hon'ble court be pleased to order to
amend the plaint as mentioned below, for proper
adjudication of the matter, in the interest of justice.
Proposed Amendment:
Add para No.6(a) after para No.6 of the plaint:
“To their surprise, the plaintiffs noticed that, the RTC
extract revealed that the name of the defendant No.1
incorporated vide mutation order dated 22-09-2006 in
M.No.9/2006-07. The defendant No.1 with the active
connivance of revenue authorities, on false and
misrepresentation of relationship without any iota of right
or title, has clandestinely obtained illegal mutation order.
The relinquishment purported to have been made by K.
Venkatesh Gouda is purely a created theory by the
defendant No.1 with the mala-fide intention to obtain
illegal mutation orders. Hence, the mutation and revenue
entries in favour of the defendant No.1 is without any
right, as such the same is illegal and not binding on the
plaintiffs".
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
Add para No.6(b) in the plaint:
It is submitted that, the defendant No.1 on the
basis of concocted on false genealogy, misrepresenting
that she is the daughter of Hanumanthagouda and elder
sister of Venkateshgouda, had obtained mutation which is
apparently illegal and not sustainable in law.
Add para No.7(a) after para No.7 of the plaint:
"The defendant No.1 in-fact is the daughter of one
Tekkalakote Siddappa. The defendant No.2 is none other
than own younger brother of the defendant No.1. This
defendant No.2 has deliberately attested the partition
deed dated 07-02-2009 in favour of his sister the
defendant No.1 relating to the suit property. The
photograph scanned at page No.4 of the partition deed
vide document No.4702/2008-09 is nothing but the photo
of the defendant No.2. However, a person name projected
as Venkateshgouda. Thus, the defendant No.1 and 2 with
the mala-fide intention to grab the suit properties by
illegal means have indulged in impersonation of the
documents. Hence, the partition deed dated 07-02-2009
is void ab-initio and not binding on the plaintiffs".
Add para No.7(b) in the plaint:
"The defendants and children of defendant No.1 are
highhanded, had support of local politicians and due to
their muscle and money power, playing pressure tactics
by implicating the plaintiffs in false criminal cases. Though
the revenue entries are forthcoming in the name of the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
defendant No.1 since from 2006, however it is the
plaintiffs are in physical possession of the suit property.
That however, as the plaintiffs started unearthing the
mischief and fraud played upon by the defendants in
creating partition deed, and initiated legal steps.
Therefore, the defendant no.1 and her children started
obstructing the plaintiffs repeatedly, thus there was
scramble for possession of the suit lands. Hence, the
plaintiffs though the absolute owners are unable to
cultivate the suit lands peacefully due to highhanded
interference by the defendants. The defendants taking
undue advantage of RTC entries, are laying false claim
contending that the defendant No.1 is the possession of
the suit property. In view of the first defendant's attitude
attempting to lay false claim by way of adverse
possession against the plaintiffs, hence, if the Hon'ble
court comes to the conclusion that the defendant No.1 is
in possession without title to the suit property, the same
is unlawful possession and hence the plaintiffs are entitled
for restoration of possession. Therefore, in the alternative
the plaintiffs also filing additional relief for recovery of
possession of the suit property".
Add para No.10(a) after para No.10 of the plaint:
"The relief of recovery of possession is incidential to
main relief for declaration of title and plaintiffs have
already valued the suit on market value and paid
prescribed court fee, hence, separate court fee need not
be paid as court fee of Rs.93,000/-is paid on the main
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
relief under Section 24(b) may be treated as paid u/s
24(a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act".
Add para No.11(ii)(a) in the plaint:
"In the alternative, the plaintiffs are entitled to
possession of the suit lands, hence, the Hon'ble court be
pleased to direct the defendant No.1 to handover the
vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs".
By the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs sought
recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties.
6. The defendants filed objections to the said
application contending that the proposed amendment would
change the nature of the suit and also there is no due diligence
on the part of the plaintiffs and sought for dismissal of the said
application. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court has
passed the order, which reads as follows:
“ORDER
I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17
R/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code is hereby allowed
with cost of Rs.300/-.”
7. The Trial Court allowed the application filed under
Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, observing that the trial had not
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
yet commenced and that the application had been filed before
the commencement of trial. Accordingly, the Trial Court found it
appropriate to allow the application and permit the plaintiffs to
amend the plaint.
8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial
Court, the petitioners/defendants have preferred the present
writ petition.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that
the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the proposed
amendment completely changes the nature and character of
the original suit, which was one for declaration and injunction,
into a suit for recovery of possession, which is impermissible in
law. Learned counsel further contends that, if the respondents
seek the relief of possession, they are required to plead the
factum of dispossession and specify the date on which such
dispossession took place. In the absence of such pleadings, the
plaintiff/respondents cannot seek the relief of recovery of
possession.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
10. Learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court
has erred in holding that the proposed amendment is merely
explanatory in nature. In fact, the insertion of Paragraph
No.10(a), seeking recovery of possession as an alternative
relief, materially alters the nature and character of the suit by
transforming it from a suit for declaration and injunction into
one involving the relief of possession, thereby enlarging the
scope of the suit.
11. It is further contended that the defendants have
already filed their written statement and the issues have been
framed. At this stage, permitting the plaintiff to introduce a
new relief that alters the original cause of action is
impermissible, particularly in view of the proviso to Order VI
Rule 17 of the CPC. Accordingly, learned counsel seeks the
intervention of this Court to set aside the order passed by the
Trial Court on I.A. No.IV.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
plaintiffs/respondents contends that the proposed amendment
is merely explanatory in nature, as the relevant contentions
have already been pleaded in Paragraph No.7 of the plaint. He
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
submits that the proposed insertion of Paragraph No.7(a) is
only explanatory and does not introduce any new facts or alter
the nature and character of the suit. With regard to the stage
of the proceedings, learned counsel contends that the trial has
not yet commenced and, therefore, no prejudice would be
caused to the petitioners by permitting the proposed
amendment. Accordingly, he supports the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court and seeks dismissal of the petition.
13. I have given my anxious consideration to the
contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the
materials available on record.
14. It is seen from the impugned order, which deals
with the matter in detail, that the Trial Court has specifically
observed that the plaintiffs seek to insert Paragraph No.7(a) in
the plaint to elaborate upon their existing pleadings concerning
the partition. On perusal of the plaint averments, it appears
that, in Paragraph No.7, the plaintiffs have alleged that
defendant No.1, with the assistance of defendant Nos.2 and 3,
had taken a stranger, representing him to be Venkatesh Gouda,
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
to the Sub-Registrar’s Office for the purpose of presenting the
partition deed and had obtained his photograph and signature
on the partition deed dated 09.02.2009.
15. The Trial Court has rightly held that the proposed
insertion of Paragraph No.7(a) is merely explanatory of the
existing pleadings contained in Paragraph No.7 and does not
introduce any new facts. Therefore, the proposed amendment
would not prejudice the defendants. The Trial Court has further
observed that merely allowing the application for amendment
would not dispense with the plaintiffs’ obligation to prove their
case, and the burden of establishing the pleaded facts would
continue to rest upon them.
16. It is further observed that the plaintiffs seek to
incorporate Paragraph No.7(a) to claim recovery of possession
as an alternative relief. On perusal of the written statement
filed by defendant No.1, it appears that he has asserted that he
is in lawful and continuous possession of the suit schedule
property and has, in the alternative, claimed title by way of
adverse possession. In view of the stand taken by defendant
No.1, the Trial Court has found that the proposed amendment
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
is necessitated by the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, it
has held that the proposed amendment neither introduces a
new cause of action nor alters the nature and character of the
suit.
17. The Trial Court has taken note of the judgment
reported in Ravjeetu Builders and Developers vs.
Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others in Civil Appeal
No.6921 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (c) No.1552 of
2007), which states that the general principle is that Courts at
any stage of the proceedings may allow either party to alter or
amend the pleadings in such a manner and such terms as may
be just and all those amendments must be allowed which are
imperative for determining the real question in controversy
between the parties. In the present case, for discussion made
above, the said amendment is necessary for determining the
real question in controversy between the parties.
18. The Trial Court has also relied upon the judgment in
Hari Singh v. Balvir Singh and Others, C.R. No. 3868 of
2022 (O&M) , wherein the scope of Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC has been considered. The said judgment explains that, as
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, no application
for amendment shall be allowed after the commencement of
the trial unless the Court concludes that, despite the exercise of
due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter
before the commencement of the trial.
19. In the present case, the trial has not yet
commenced. Further, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is evident that the proposed
amendment is necessary for the complete and effective
adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Therefore, in
view of the foregoing facts and circumstances and the
principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, I am of the
considered opinion that the Trial Court has passed a reasoned
order and hence no perversity or illegality warranting the
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is made out.
20. Hence the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is dismissed .
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16836
WP No. 100038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020222332025
ii) The order dated 19.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.IV
filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151
of the CPC in O.S.No.300/2023 by the Court of II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari, sitting at
Siruguppa, is hereby confirmed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
Kmv upto para 5
PMP
CT:VH