HANAMAVVA W/O HANAMAPPA KANCHIGIDAD vs RANGAPPA S/O NEELAPPA HOLEMMANAVAR

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:7988
WP No. 110369 of 2014

HC-KAR




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
R

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO. 110369 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. HANAMAVVA
W/O HANAMAPPA KANCHIGIDAD,
AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MUTTALAGERI, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.


1A.








RANGAPPA S/O NEELAPPA HOLEMMANAVAR,
DECEASED BY LR’S.,

SMT. KONAVVA
W/O RANGAPPA HOLIYAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
SINCE DECEASED R1B TO R1G TREATED
AS LR’S OF DECEASED R1A.

1B.. SMT. KAMALAVVA
D/O RANGAPPA HOLIYAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

1C. SMT. HANAMAVVA
D/O RANGAPPA HOLIYAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

1D. SMT. SEKHAVVA
D/O RANGAPPA HOLIYAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,



Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:7988
WP No. 110369 of 2014

HC-KAR



1E. SMT. ANNAKKA
D/O RANGAPPA HOLIYAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

1F. SMT. MANJAVVA
D/O RANGAPPA HOLIYAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

1G. SMT. REKHA
D/O RANGAPPA HOLIYAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

(SINCE SL.NO.1F AND 1G MINORS
R/BY THEIR GUARDIAN AT SL.NO.1A KONNAVVA,

ALL R/O: MUTTALAGERI, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.

2.



2A.
SMT. HANAMAVVA
W/O BHIMAPPA HOSAGOUDAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S.,

SMT. KARIYAVVA
D/O BHIMAPPA HOSAGOUDAR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TEGGI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

3. MUDIYAVVA W/O KONAPPA KURI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S.,

3A. BHIMAPPA W/O KONNAPPA KURI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ADGAL, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

3B. YALLAPPA W/O KONNAPPA KURI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ADGAL, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

3B(I). SMT. SHEKAVVA W/O YALLAPPA KURI,
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:7988
WP No. 110369 of 2014

HC-KAR


R/O: ADGAL, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

3B(II). MANJAPPA S/O YALLAPPA KURI,
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ADGAL VILLAGE, TQ: BADAMI, DIST:
BAGALKOT.

3B(III). MALLAVVA D/O YALLAPPA KURI,
AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: ADGAL VILLAGE, TQ: BADAMI, DIST:
BAGALKOT.

3B(IV). PRAKASH D/O YALLAPPA KURI,
AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: ADGAL VILLAGE, TQ: BADAMI, DIST:
BAGALKOT.

3C. BELAGERI S/O KONAPPA KURI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ADGAL, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

4. SMT. DYAVAKKA W/O MALLAPPA MELANADAD,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MUTTALAGERI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

5. SMT. SANNADYAVAKKA W/O HANAMAPPA MALLUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MUTTALAGERI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

6. GONDEPPA S/O MALLAPPA MELANADAD,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.,

6A. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O GONDEPPA MELNAD,
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NANDIKESHAWAR VILLAGE, TQ. BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.

6B. SMT. NIRMALA W/O BASAVARAJ MOKASHI,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MUTTALAGERI, TQ. BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:7988
WP No. 110369 of 2014

HC-KAR



6C. MANJUNATH S/O GONDEPPA MELNAD,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUTTALAGERI, TQ. BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.

6D. PRAKASH S/O GONDEPPA MELNAD,
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUTTALAGERI, TQ. BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.

6E. PARUSHURAM S/O GONDEPPA MELNAD,
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUTTALAGERI, TQ. BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.

6F. MALLIKARJUN S/O GONDEPPA MELNAD,
AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUTTALAGERI, TQ. BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. R.R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B-E), R1(G), R(2A);
R3(B) AND R5, R1(B-G) ARE LR’S OF R1(A);
SRI. H.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6(C-F);
R1(F), R3(B)(I-IV), R6(A) AND R6(B) ARE SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
03.09.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., BAGALKOT ON I.A. NOS.6 AND 7 IN
O.S. NO.27/1995 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE I.A. NO.6 AND 7 AND ETC.,

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

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:7988
WP No. 110369 of 2014

HC-KAR


ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff
calling in question the legality and correctness of the order
passed on I.A.Nos.6 and 7 filed under Section 152 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), whereby the
Court below has declined the prayer seeking correction of the
preliminary decree by inclusion of agricultural land bearing
Survey No.120 measuring 18 acres 21 guntas. The petitioner
contends that the said property was very much part of the
suit schedule by virtue of an amendment carried out during
the pendency of the suit and that omission to incorporate the
said property in the preliminary decree was only an
accidental omission.
2. The respondents/defendants resisted the
application contending that the request was made after an
inordinate delay of 5,638 days and therefore the same was
not maintainable. The learned Trial Judge, placing reliance

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:7988
WP No. 110369 of 2014

HC-KAR


on the judgment rendered by this Court in RSA No.929/2003
connected with RSA No.928/2003, proceeded to reject the
applications.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents. Perused the material placed on record.
4. Before examining the correctness of the reasons
assigned by the Court below, this Court deems it necessary
to ascertain as to whether agricultural land bearing Survey
No.120 measuring 18 acres 21 guntas formed part of the
subject-matter of the suit. A careful examination of the
records would reveal that the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.V
seeking amendment of the plaint and by order dated
14.06.1994, the said application came to be allowed.
Pursuant thereto, the plaint was amended and the aforesaid
agricultural land was specifically incorporated in the suit
schedule. Therefore, the contention that the said property
was never the subject-matter of adjudication is wholly
misconceived and contrary to the record.

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:7988
WP No. 110369 of 2014

HC-KAR


5. The next aspect which assumes significance is as
to whether any issue was framed touching the rights of the
parties in relation to Survey No.120. A perusal of the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.27/1995 would
indicate that a specific issue, namely Issue No.2, was framed
in regard to the validity and binding nature of the alienation
relating to Survey No.120. Therefore, not only was the
property included in the amended plaint, but the rights of the
parties in respect of the said property were also put in issue
and adjudicated upon by the Trial Court.
6. A meticulous reading of the findings recorded by
the Trial Court on Issue No.2 would indicate that the said
issue was answered in the affirmative. The Trial Court
categorically held that the plaintiff had succeeded in
establishing that the alienation effected in respect of
agricultural land bearing Survey No.120 of Banakaneri village
in favour of the defendants would not bind the plaintiff’s
share. The necessary corollary flowing from the said finding
is that the plaintiff’s entitlement to claim partition and
separate possession in respect of Survey No.120 stood

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:7988
WP No. 110369 of 2014

HC-KAR


recognized by the judgment itself. Therefore, omission to
reflect the said property in the preliminary decree was
evidently an inadvertent omission and not the result of any
conscious adjudication.
7. The principal question that therefore arises for
consideration is whether the Court below was justified in
rejecting the applications filed under Section 152 of CPC
solely on the ground of delay and by placing reliance on the
observations made in RSA No.929/2003 and connected
matters. The answer, in the considered opinion of this Court,
has to be in the negative.
8. This Court in Nareppa vs.
Chikkavenkatarayappa and Others in W.P No.
1170/2013, while placing reliance on the earlier judgment
rendered in CRP No.1525/1971, has categorically held that
the power under Section 152 of CPC is not confined merely
to correction of clerical mistakes in the decree but extends to
rectification of accidental slips and omissions so as to make
the decree conform to the judgment and the pleadings. The

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:7988
WP No. 110369 of 2014

HC-KAR


said judgment also recognizes that amendment of pleadings
and consequential correction of the decree even after
passing of the decree is permissible in appropriate cases so
as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to give full effect
to the adjudication already made by the Court.
9. In the present case, the petitioner stands on a
much stronger footing. The property in question was
admittedly incorporated in the plaint pursuant to an order
allowing amendment. A specific issue touching the said
property was framed and the Trial Court, while answering
the issue, unequivocally held that the alienation would not
affect the plaintiff’s rights. Once the rights of the parties in
respect of Survey No.120 stood adjudicated and declared,
omission to incorporate the said property in the preliminary
decree was only an accidental omission occurring while
drawing the decree. Therefore, the Court below was not
justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Section 152
of CPC.

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:7988
WP No. 110369 of 2014

HC-KAR


10. It is trite law that the right of a coparcener or a
member of a Hindu joint family to seek partition is a pre-
existing right. The Court, while passing a preliminary decree
in a suit for partition, does not create any new right in favour
of the parties, but merely declares and crystallizes the pre-
existing rights which already exist in the joint family
properties. Thus, the decree only recognizes and declares
the shares to which the parties are entitled and does not
confer any fresh title.
11. Viewed from this perspective, omission to include
Survey No.120 in the preliminary decree cannot result in
extinguishment of the plaintiff’s substantive right. The right
to enforce partition continues till a final decree is drawn, the
shares are worked out and possession is delivered to the
parties. Therefore, mere lapse of time or delay in bringing to
the notice of the Court an accidental omission in the decree
would not defeat the substantive rights flowing from the
judgment. In a partition suit, where rights are pre-existing in
nature and continue till actual division by metes and bounds,

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:7988
WP No. 110369 of 2014

HC-KAR


delay by itself cannot constitute a ground to reject an
application seeking correction of an accidental omission.
12. Once it is demonstrated that Survey No.120
measuring 18 acres 21 guntas was included in the amended
plaint and that a specific issue relating thereto was framed
and answered in favour of the plaintiff, the omission in the
preliminary decree can only be attributed to an oversight
committed while preparing the decree. Such an omission
squarely falls within the ambit of Section 152 of CPC.
Therefore, the Court below committed a manifest error in
declining the applications by assigning undue significance to
the delay and by relying upon judgments which have no
application to the peculiar facts of the present case.
13. There is yet another aspect which deserves
emphasis. An application under Section 151 of CPC stands on
a different footing from an application under Section 152 of
CPC. Invocation of Section 152 of CPC is, in essence, a
request made to the Court to rectify its own accidental slip or
omission and to bring the decree in conformity with what has

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:7988
WP No. 110369 of 2014

HC-KAR


already been adjudicated. In such proceedings, the litigant
merely points out that the decree drawn does not faithfully
reflect the judgment rendered by the Court. Therefore, once
it is established that the omission occurred at the stage of
drawing the decree and not at the stage of adjudication, the
Court is under an obligation to rectify the error so that the
decree conforms to the findings recorded in the judgment.
The approach adopted by the Court below, therefore, suffers
from patent legal infirmity warranting interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed .
(ii) The order dated 03.09.2014 passed by the
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkot,
on I.A.Nos.6 and 7 in O.S.No.27/1995, vide Annexure-
A, is hereby quashed and set aside.

- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:7988
WP No. 110369 of 2014

HC-KAR


(iii) Consequently, I.A.Nos.6 and 7 filed under
Section 152 of CPC stand allowed.
(iv) The Registry of the Trial Court is directed to
draw a fresh preliminary decree by incorporating
agricultural land bearing Survey No.120 measuring 18
acres 21 guntas, in conformity with the findings
recorded in the judgment.
(v) It is made clear that the rights, if any,
accrued in favour of the purchaser in respect of Survey
No.120 shall remain protected in terms of the
observations made by this Court in RSA No.929/2003
connected with RSA No.928/2003.
(vi) Ordered accordingly.


Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE



ALB,
CT:BCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 48