SRI K M KRISHNAPPA vs SRI. BYRAPPA LRS OF DECEASED BYRAPPA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53675
WP No. 25998 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010570082026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.25998 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K.M.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
2. SRI. K.M.RAJANNA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.54,
KENCHANAHALLI,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
SRI. BYRAPPA
LRS OF DECEASED BYRAPPA
SANJEEVAMMA
W/O LATE BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. SEENA
S/O LATE BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. KANTHA
S/O LATE BYRAPPA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53675
WP No. 25998 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010570082026
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
THESE DEFENDANTS ARE
TH TH
R/AT NO.626, 6 MAIN, 7 CROSS,
RAJGOPAL NAGARA,
ND
PEENYA 2 STAGE,
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 058
4. SRI. RAJANNA
S/O LATE PATEL MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK - 562 159
5. SRI. NAGESH N.
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
6. PRASAD N
S/O KIDIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
7. NAGARAJU B.S.
S/O LATE SADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
8. PUTTAMMA
W/O SHOBHANABABU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
9. SHIVASWAMY
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
SY. NO.25/10, WONDERLA ROAD,
MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI,
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT - 562 109
…RESPONDENTS
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53675
WP No. 25998 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010570082026
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, WRIT
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 02/12/2025 ON I.A NO.6 IN O.S
NO.279/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC AT RAMANAGARA VIDE ANNEXURE-H; AND ETC
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed impugning the order dated
02.12.2025 passed in O.S. No.279/2017 on I.A. No.6, filed
under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, whereby the prayer for
amendment has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the suit has been filed seeking a declaration that the
plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule
properties and for permanent injunction. It is submitted that, in
the written statement, the defendants have raised a plea that
the suit schedule properties were purchased by them under a
registered sale deed dated 27.12.1974 executed by the father
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53675
WP No. 25998 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010570082026
of the plaintiffs, and have produced Ex.D.3, the encumbrance
certificate.
2.1 It is further submitted that the sale deed dated
27.12.1974 could not be referred to in the plaint originally, as
the said document and the relevant information were not within
the knowledge of the plaintiffs despite due diligence. Learned
counsel submits that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the
application for amendment.
2.2 It is contended that, insofar as the proposed amendment
seeks a declaration in respect of the sale deed dated
27.12.1974, the issue of limitation would arise for
consideration. It is therefore submitted that the amendment
ought to have been permitted, leaving the question of limitation
open to be considered during the course of trial.
3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioners and perused the impugned order.
4. The amendment application is filed seeking a prayer to
declare the sale deed dated 27.12.1974 as not binding on the
plaintiffs and to declare the subsequent sale deeds as not
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53675
WP No. 25998 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010570082026
binding on the plaintiffs insofar as the suit schedule properties
are concerned.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is
stated that the sale transaction dated 27.12.1974 was not
within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. It is further stated that
the encumbrance certificate for a period of 59 years in respect
of the land in question, produced as Ex.P.10, does not reflect
the said sale transaction.
6. However, it is to be noticed that the sale deed dated
27.12.1974 is reflected in the encumbrance certificate produced
as Ex.D.3, which is further corroborated by the production of
the said registered sale deed. The contention that, despite due
diligence having been exercised at the time of filing of the suit,
the plaintiffs were unaware of the registered sale deed dated
27.12.1974 until the defendants raised the issue by producing
the registered document and the encumbrance certificate at
Ex.D.3, cannot be accepted.
7. When the encumbrance certificate produced as Ex.D.3
reflects the sale deed dated 27.12.1974, the contention that
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53675
WP No. 25998 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010570082026
Ex.P.10—encumbrance certificate does not reflect the said sale
deed cannot be accepted. Moreover, the affidavit filed in
support of the application does not set out the nature of the
due diligence said to have been exercised by the plaintiffs,
despite which the factum of the sale deed dated 27.12.1974
could not be pleaded in the plaint.
8. No doubt, amendments to pleadings, which are necessary
for a comprehensive and complete adjudication of the dispute,
are required to be considered liberally. However, the burden
remains on the applicant to demonstrate before the Court that,
despite exercising due diligence, the facts sought to be
introduced by way of amendment could not have been pleaded
earlier for want of knowledge.
9. In the present case, the plea of due diligence is sought to
be founded on the encumbrance certificate at Ex.P.10, which is
contrary to the encumbrance certificate at Ex.D.3. In view of
the encumbrance certificate produced at Ex.D.3, the foundation
sought to be laid on the basis of Ex.P.10 to establish due
diligence cannot be accepted.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53675
WP No. 25998 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010570082026
10. No doubt, if the amendment had been permitted, the
question as to the maintainability of the prayer and the
applicable period of limitation could have been adjudicated in
the course of the trial. However, when the very basis for
seeking the amendment at this belated stage has not been
established, the said issue need not be considered by this
Court, as it would remain purely academic.
11. This Court finds no error or infirmity in the order passed
by the Trial Court.
dismissed
Accordingly, the petition is .
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8