SRI M R SHIVAKUMAR vs SRI RENUKA PRASAD

- 1 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026


Reserved on: 21.09.2026
Pronounced on: 03.11.2026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

WRIT PETITION NO. 24066 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN:

1. SRI M R SHIVAKUMAR,
S/O LATE RAJASHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

2. SRI. M.R. JAGADISH,
S/O LATE RAJASHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

3. SRI. M.R. GOWRISHANKAR,
S/O LATE RAJASHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

PETITIONER No.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT 2ND CROSS, R.R. ROAD,
DOOMLIGHT, MAGADI TOWN,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120.
…PETITIONERS










Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka

(BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAMESHA T. R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI RENUKA PRASAD,
S/O KARIBASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

- 2 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026


2. SRI. RUDRESH,
S/O SIDDAGANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 19, 5TH CROSS,
PIPELINE ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE -560 023.

3. SMT. NAGAMMA.
D/O LATE SOMASHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT KANNALLI VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 091.

4. SMT. PARVATHAMMA,
D/O LATE SOMASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 178, 1ST BLOCK,
19TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU -560 010.
SINCE DEAD BY LRS

SMT.NIRMALA B.B,
W/O UDAYA KUMAR B.S,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.15, NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL,
BETTAHALSUR, BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU-562157.

5. SMT. LATHA VINAYAK KULLAHALLI,
W/O VINAYAK KULLAHALLI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT ANUGRAHA NILAYA,
NEAR BGS WORLD SCHOOL,
NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU-562123.

6. SMT. JYOTHI B. B.,
W/O RAJESH B.G,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.466, BETTAHALSUR,
NEAR SAI VIDYA MANDIR SCHOOL,
BENGALURU-562157.

- 3 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026



7. SMT. KUSUMA,
D/O PARVATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. K-178,
1ST BLOCK, 19TH MAIN,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.

8. SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH,
MAJOR IN AGE,
S/O. LATE RAJASHEKARAPPA,
RESIDING AT KANNALLI VILLAGE,
KODAGEHALLI PANCHAYATH,
YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BANGALORE-560 091.

9. SMT. UMADEVI,
W/O. LATE GURUMALLAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT KANNALLI VILLAGE,
KODAGEHALLI PANCHAYATH,
YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI,
VISHWANEEDAM POST
BANGALORE-560 091.

10. SMT. HEMAVATHI,
D/O. LATE GURUMALLAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT KANNALLI VILLAGE,
KODAGEHALLI PANCHAYATH,
YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BANGALORE-560 091.

11. SRI. SIDDALINGASWAMY,
S/O. LATE GURUMALLAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT KANNALLI VILLAGE,
KODAGEHALLI PANCHAYATH,
YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BANGALORE-560 091

- 4 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026


12. SMT.MAMATHA,
D/O. LATE GURUMALLAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT KANNALLI VILLAGE,
KODAGEHALLI PANCHAYATH,
YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BANGALORE-560 091.

13. SRI. GURUSHANTHAPPA,
S/O. LATE GURUMALLAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT KANNALLI VILLAGE,
KODAGEHALLI PANCHAYATH,
YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BANGALORE-560 091

14. SMT. SHARADAMMA,
W/O. LATE RAJASHEKARAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT 2 CROSS,
R.R. ROAD, NEAR DOME LIGHT,
MAGADI, BANGALORE RURAL-562 120

15. SMT. VIMALAMBIKE,
D/O. LATE RAJASHEKARAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE RESIDING AT
2ND CROSS, R.R.ROAD, NEAR DOME LIGHT,
MAGADI BANGALORE RURAL-562 120

16. SMT. HEMAVATHI,
D/O. LATE RAJASHEKARAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,
R.R.ROAD, NEAR DONME LIGHT, MAGADI
BANGALORE RURAL-562 120

17. SRI. M.R.SHIVAKUMAR @ PRAKASH,
S/O. LATE RAJASHEKARAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT 2ND CROSS, R.R.ROAD,
NEAR DOME LIGHT, MAGADI
BANGALORE RURAL-562 120

- 5 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026



18. SMT.INDRANI,
D/O. LATE RAJASHEKARAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,
R.R.ROAD, NEAR DOME LIGHT,
MAGADI, BANGALORE RURAL-562 120

19. SRI JAGADISH,
S/O. LATE RAJASHEKARAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,
R.R. ROAD, NEAR DOME LIGHT,
MAGADI, BANGALORE RURAL-562 120

20. SRI. SHANKAR,
S/O. LATE RAJASHEKARAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,
R.R. ROAD, NEAR DOME LIGHT,
MAGADI BANGALORE RURAL-562 120

21. SMT.JAGADAMBIKE,
D/O. LATE SIDDAGANGAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT 6445,
BEHIND MUNICIPAL QUARTERS,
SUASHNAGAR, NELAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-562 123

22. SMT.SHIVARATHNA,
D/O. LATE SIDDALINGAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT OPP NO. 733,
NETHAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 057

23. SMT.HEMALATHA,
D/O. SRI. KARIBASAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
C/O. REVANASIDDAPPA,
NETHAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 079

- 6 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026


24. SMT.VASANTHA,
D/O. SRI. KARIBASAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
C/O. SIDDARAMANNA,
(RETIRED TAHSILDAR)
ASHOK NAGAR,
9TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
TUMKUR-572 102

25. SMT. HEMALATHA,
W/O. KUMARASWAMY, (LATE),
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT NARASANDRA VILLAGE,
NARASANDRA POST,
SOLUR SUB-POST,
BANGALORE-562 127

26. MISS.RUPA,
D/O. LATE KUMARASWAMY,
MINOR-5 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER,
SMT. HEMALATHA AS
NATURAL GUARDIAN,
RESIDING AT NARASANDRA VILLAGE,
NARASANDRA POST,
SOLUR SUB-POST,
BANGALORE-562 127

27. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH, ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020

28. SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY,
S/O. LATE THIRUMALAGIRI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KODABORANAHALLI,
HULIYUR DURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKUR DISTRICT.

29. SRI.KUMARASWAMY,
S/O. BORAIAH,

- 7 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026


AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 274,
1ST N CROSS, 1STBLOCK,
2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE-560 072

30. SMT.SUJATHA SHIVARAJU,
W/O. SRI. SHIVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 298, 8TH CROSS,
6TH BLOCK, II STAGE,
NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE-560 072
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. P.C. VINITHA, ADVOCATE R1;
SRI ANANTHA J., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R22)


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 01.06.2026 PASSED IN OS.NO.786/2007,
PASSED BY HON'BLE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU AS PER
ANNEXURE-A, ON I.A.NO. 28 AND 29, BY ALLOWING THE IAS
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE B AND B1.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING :

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

- 8 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026



C.A.V. ORDER

This writ petition is filed impugning the order dated
01.06.2026 in O.S. No.786/2007 passed on an application filed
under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’). The petitioners are
defendant Nos.13, 15 and 16 before the Trial Court.
Respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted O.S. No.786/2007 seeking
partition and separate possession in respect of the suit
schedule properties. The plaintiff filed I.A. Nos.28 and 29 under
Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, seeking amendment of the
pleadings and the prayer. The Trial Court, having considered
that the proposed amendment was necessary for the
comprehensive and complete adjudication of the dispute
between the parties, allowed the applications.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the suit was originally instituted as O.S.
No.15001/2004 for partition and separate possession, which
was subsequently renumbered as O.S. No.786/2007. It is
submitted that, after the examination-in-chief of PW.1 was
recorded on 28.11.2018, an application under Order VI Rule 17
of the CPC came to be filed, which was allowed and the

- 9 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026


amendment was permitted. Thereafter, the plaintiff adduced
additional evidence and marked additional documents. It is
submitted that, subsequently, the present applications in I.A.
Nos.28 and 29 seeking amendment were filed. The Trial Court,
however, erroneously entertained the said applications.

3. Learned counsel submits that the proposed
amendment seeks to challenge the registered Will dated
13.05.1985 and the partition deed dated 20.07.2003. Learned
counsel submits that the execution of the registered Will dated
13.05.1985 has been admitted in the plaint and that pleadings
have also been made insofar as the partition deed dated
20.07.2003 is concerned. It is submitted that the prayers
sought to be introduced by way of amendment are intended to
delay the proceedings and dilute the admission made in the
plaint. It is further submitted that the reliefs sought by way of
amendment are also hit by limitation.

3.1 Learned counsel submits that, despite the
registered Will dated 13.05.1985 and the partition deed dated
20.07.2003 being within the knowledge of the plaintiff, the
applications have been filed after a lapse of 18 years, with a
fraudulent intention to deprive the parties of their rights in the

- 10 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026


joint family suit schedule properties. In support of the
submissions, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavaraj v. Indira
1
and Others .

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that, when the applications for
amendment were filed, the trial in the suit had not commenced
and the matter was at the stage of examination of PW.1. It is
submitted that any amendment which is relevant for the
adjudication of the dispute between the parties is required to
be construed liberally, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings
and facilitate comprehensive and complete adjudication of the
dispute. In that view of the matter, learned senior counsel
places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
2
in Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and Others ;
Pankaja and Another v. Yellappa (Dead) by LRs. and
3
Others ; and Life Insurance Corporation of India v.
4
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another .

1

(2024) 3 SCC 705
2

(2001) 2 SCC 472
3
(2004) 6 SCC 415
4

(2022) 16 SCC 1

- 11 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026



5. Considered the submissions made by learned senior
counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the writ
papers and the impugned order.

6. It is evident from the record that the suit in
question was instituted on 01.01.2004 and was numbered as
O.S. No.15001/2004. Thereafter, the said suit came to be
transferred and renumbered as O.S. No.786/2007. The parties
filed their respective written statements, pursuant to which
issues were framed on 02.01.2016. Additional issues were
framed on 23.08.2016. The examination-in-chief of the plaintiff
as PW.1 was recorded only on 28.11.2018. An application
seeking amendment of the pleadings was thereafter allowed on
31.07.2024. The present applications seek a second
amendment to the pleadings.

7. The affidavit accompanying the applications seeks
to explain that the amendment was necessitated on account of
subsequent information which, according to the plaintiff, was
not within his knowledge despite exercising due diligence. The
alleged subsequent information relates to the Panchayat
Palupatti dated 02.05.1948. On the basis of the said
information, amendment is sought to incorporate a prayer to

- 12 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026


declare the registered partition deed dated 20.07.2003 as null
and void. A further prayer is sought to be incorporated to
declare, on the same basis, the Will dated 13.05.1985 as a
created document.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
invited the attention of this Court to the unamended plaint in
O.S. No.786/2007. In paragraph 14 of the unamended plaint,
reference is made to the admission regarding the registered
Will dated 13.05.1985. Further, in paragraph 19 of the
unamended plaint, reference is made to the registered partition
deed dated 30.07.2003. I.A. No.29 relates to compensation in
respect of the land acquired by the BDA in Survey No.104,
measuring 2 acres 33 guntas, in respect of which a right to
share in the compensation is claimed.

9. In both the applications, amendment is sought after
commencement of the trial. When the earlier application for
amendment was filed, the suit was at the stage of recording the
evidence of the plaintiff, and the said application came to be
allowed. The suit has remained at the same stage even after
seven years. Therefore, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC is attracted in the present case. In that view of the matter,

- 13 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026


whether the applications for amendment satisfy the
requirements of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is a
necessary issue that requires consideration by this Court.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
relied upon the three judgments referred to supra, wherein it
has been held that an amendment to the pleadings is required
to be considered liberally at any stage, if such amendment has
a bearing on the issues to be adjudicated in the suit. However,
certain exceptions have been carved out. One such exception is
that an amendment, if permitted, should not have the effect of
withdrawing any admission made by the party seeking the
amendment. It is further held that even where the amendment
raises an issue of limitation, the same can be permitted,
subject to the issue of limitation being decided by directing the
Trial Court to frame an appropriate issue.

11. The interpretation of the proviso to Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC was not the subject matter for consideration in
the aforesaid judgments. Whereas, in the judgment relied upon
by the petitioners in the case of Basavaraj (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the effect of the proviso to
Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC when an amendment is sought. In

- 14 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026


the present case, the requirements of the proviso have to be
satisfied before the amendment can be permitted.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Basavaraj (supra),
has held that, though amendments to pleadings are ordinarily
allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Court is required
to consider whether the application for amendment is bona fide
or mala fide and whether the amendment would cause such
prejudice to the opposite party, which cannot be adequately
compensated in terms of money. Another consideration is
whether the amendment would fundamentally alter the nature
and character of the suit or whether a fresh suit on the
amended claim would be barred on the date of filing of the
application. It is further held that any right accrued to the
opposite party cannot be taken away on account of delay in
filing the application. It has also been held that what cannot be
done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.

13. The suit is one for partition. If the facts of the
present case are tested in the light of the aforesaid principles
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the amendment
sought were to include additional items of properties in the suit
schedule, the same would necessarily require liberal

- 15 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026


consideration in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and
facilitate comprehensive adjudication of the dispute. However,
the amendment sought in the present case travels in a different
direction.

14. Insofar as the registered Will dated 13.05.1985 and
the disputed partition deed dated 30.07.2003 are concerned,
reference thereto can be found in the pre-amended plaint itself.
On a plain reading of the plaint, no dispute was raised with
regard to the registered Will or the partition deed. However,
under the guise of amendment, the plaintiff now seeks to
challenge the same by seeking a declaration that the partition
deed dated 20.07.2003 is not binding on the plaintiff and also
seeks alteration of the share claimed in the suit schedule
properties.

15. Though it is stated that the amendment was
necessitated on account of fresh facts coming to light pursuant
to the Panchayat Palupatti dated 02.05.1948, no substantive or
consequential relief is sought on the basis of the said Panchayat
Palupatti dated 02.05.1948.

16. Insofar as the claim for compensation made in I.A.
No.29 is concerned, the same relates to Survey No.104. It is

- 16 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026


clearly stated that the acquisition of the said land was within
the knowledge of the plaintiff as on the date of institution of the
suit.

17. From the above, it is clear from the pleadings of the
plaintiff itself that all the three issues relating to the registered
Will dated 13.05.1985, the partition deed dated 20.07.2003,
and the compensation payable by the BDA in respect of the
acquisition of land in Survey No.104 were well within the
knowledge of the plaintiff. In view of the proviso to Order VI
Rule 17 of the CPC, an amendment can be permitted only if the
party seeking the amendment establishes that, despite
exercising due diligence, such pleading could not have been
made at the time of filing the plaint.

18. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Basavaraj (supra), the burden is on the party seeking
amendment to establish that, despite exercising due diligence,
the amendment could not have been sought earlier. In the
present case, facts which were within the knowledge of the
plaintiff in the year 2004, when the suit was instituted, are
sought to be introduced by way of amendment after a lapse of
18 years.

- 17 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026



19. The successive amendments sought by the plaintiff,
coupled with the fact that a suit instituted in the year 2004 is
still at the stage of recording the plaintiff’s evidence, indicate
the manner in which the proceedings have progressed. The
intention behind seeking the present amendment cannot be
said to be bona fide; rather, the circumstances indicate that the
amendment is sought with a mala fide intention to delay the
proceedings, thereby affecting the rights of the parties in
respect of their shares in the joint family properties.

20. Further, the amendment permitted by the Trial
Court has the effect of seeking to resile from the admissions
made with regard to the registered Will dated 13.05.1985 and
the partition deed dated 20.07.2003. The Trial Court, without
examining whether the requirements of the proviso to Order VI
Rule 17 of the CPC were satisfied, mechanically permitted the
amendment. In that view of the matter, the order passed by
the Trial Court cannot be sustained.

21. Accordingly, the following:

- 18 -
WP No. 24066 of 2026


O R D E R

(i) Writ petition is allowed .

(ii) The order dated 01.06.2026 on I.A. Nos.28 and 29
on the applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 of
CPC is set aside.


(iii) I.A. Nos.28 and 29 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of
CPC stands rejected.


(iv) Considering that the suit of 2004 is pending for
more than 22 years at the stage of plaintiff's
evidence, which do not provide any justifiable
reasons for such inordinate delay, this Court finds it
appropriate to direct the trial Court for expeditious
disposal of the suit, which shall be within one year
from the next date of hearing.


Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE




VBS