Widow’s Family Can Add Alternative Land-Recovery Claim After Defendant Asserted Possession, Karnataka HC Upholds Amendment

The plaintiffs brought a suit for declaration and injunction concerning agricultural lands, alleging that the first defendant’s name had been entered in the revenue records through an unlawful mutation and that a partition deed had been procured by impersonation.

During the suit, they applied under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to add pleadings challenging the mutation and partition deed and to seek recovery of possession in the alternative.

The defendants objected that the amendment changed the suit’s nature and was sought without due diligence. The Trial Court allowed the application, noting that the trial had not commenced.

The defendants challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings on just terms where the amendment is necessary to determine the real questions in controversy; after commencement of trial, the proviso bars amendment unless the court is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

The court relied on Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, cited for the principle that amendments imperative to determining the real controversy may be allowed.

Hari Singh v. Balvir Singh, cited on the due-diligence requirement after trial commences.

Article 227 permits supervisory intervention where the challenged order discloses a warranting illegality or perversity.

The High Court accepted the Trial Court’s view that the proposed pleading concerning the alleged impersonation elaborated on the existing allegation that a stranger had been presented as Venkatesh Gowda in connection with the partition deed, rather than introducing an unrelated factual case.

It also considered the alternative possession relief in light of the first defendant’s assertion of possession and alternative plea of adverse possession, and held that the amendment was needed for effective adjudication and did not alter the suit’s nature or introduce a new cause of action.

As the trial had not commenced, the proviso’s post-commencement due-diligence restriction did not apply.

The High Court found no perversity or illegality justifying supervisory intervention.

It made no order as to costs.