Amid 160 Site Buyers’ Claims, Karnataka HC Removes Southern-Side Allotment From Partition Pleading, Leaves 1/5 Share Location Open

The petitioners claimed to have purchased portions of converted land in R.S. No. 85/4, measuring 3 acres 19 guntas, which formed part of the properties in O.S. No. 154/1992.

A preliminary decree for partition was passed in 1998, followed by final decree proceedings.

After a 2021 compromise in those proceedings was set aside in earlier writ petitions, the matter was remitted to the Final Decree Court (FDP Court) for further proceedings.

Respondents 1 and 2 then obtained permission to amend their final-decree petition, including a claim to have their 1/5 share in R.S. No. 85/4—27 guntas 10 annas—carved out specifically from its southern portion.

The petitioners challenged the amendment order, contending that the requested location was unavailable and that numerous purchasers had acquired sites and built homes on the land

The amendment application was made under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the Court considered the amendment in the context of the existing preliminary decree and the ongoing final decree proceedings.

It also referred to Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act in observing that the petitioners’ claimed rights, derived through the predecessors of respondents 1 and 2, would be governed by that provision

The judgment did not set out a broader test for amendments; it held that the factual questions of availability, situation and status of the property, and the location of any allotment, were for the FDP Court to determine

The Court accepted that respondents 1 and 2 claimed an undivided 1/5 share in R.S. No. 85/4, but found that whether any land remained available for partition—and whether the southern portion could be allotted—was a question of fact for the FDP Court.

The petitioners’ claim that approximately 160 persons had purchased sites and constructed houses on the land made it inappropriate, before that factual determination, to specify the southern portion as the location of the respondents’ share.

The Court therefore limited its interference to that location-specific wording, leaving the parties’ other claims and the respondents’ asserted entitlement to a share for determination in the final decree proceedings

The amendment order was set aside only to the extent it referred to the “southern portion of the land of deceased respondent No. 1” in R.S. No. 85/4.

All questions concerning the property’s availability, situation and status were left open for the FDP Court, and the parties were permitted to seek its assistance in identifying their respective shares in accordance with law