WP/36528/2019 of SRI KRISHNAPPA Vs NARAYANASWAMY on 1 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by the plaintiff calling in question the order passed by the learned Trial Judge declining to permit amendment of the plaint at the stage when the matter had been set down for arguments.

Verified

HC-KAR

2. The petitioner-plaintiff initially instituted the suit seeking a declaration that he is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. When the matter was set down for arguments, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’), seeking leave to incorporate a prayer for partition as an alternative/consequential relief. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Trial Judge principally on the ground that the proposed amendment would alter the nature and character of the suit. The learned Trial Judge also declined the amendment on the ground of delay, observing that the application had been filed after lapse of several years.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants have been heard. This Court has also considered the judgment relied upon by learned

Verified

HC-KAR

counsel for the respondents in M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma1.

4. The genealogy/family tree placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner discloses that one Doddapillappa had two wives, namely, Puttamma and Kondamma. The petitioner-plaintiff represents the branch of the first wife, Puttamma, whereas the respondents/defendants represent the branch of the second wife, Kondamma.

5. The pleadings further disclose that the parties do not dispute that there was a partition in the year 1955, during the lifetime of Doddapillappa, in respect of the ancestral properties. The case of the petitioner, however, is that the suit land was an Inam land and that Doddapillappa along with his three sons had sought re- grant of the said land under the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act. The Deputy Commissioner, pursuant to the 1 AIR 2019 SC 940

Verified

HC-KAR

said proceedings, granted the land in favour of Doddapillappa and his three sons.

6. The petitioner, while acknowledging the partition of the ancestral properties effected in the year 1955, has instituted the present suit claiming a declaration that he is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit land. The defence of the respondents, on the other hand, is that there had been a partition and severance even in respect of the suit land and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any share therein.

7. On a careful examination of the pleadings in the plaint and the proposed amendment, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Judge has adopted an unduly technical approach in rejecting the application merely on the ground that the amendment was sought after a lapse of seven years and that the same would alter the nature and character of the suit.

Verified

HC-KAR

8. The proposed amendment has to be examined in the context of the substantive relief already sought in the plaint. The petitioner has, from the inception, asserted that he is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit land. The amendment does not introduce an altogether new or inconsistent case; rather, it seeks to incorporate the consequential relief of partition flowing from the declaration already claimed.

9. Significantly, when a specific query was put to learned counsel appearing for the respondents regarding the nature of the suit land, he fairly conceded that the suit land was admittedly Inam land and that the same had been re-granted in favour of Doddapillappa and his three sons.

10. In view of the aforesaid admission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entitlement of the three sons to the respective shares in the re-granted Inam land is not in dispute. According to the petitioner, his

Verified

HC-KAR

claim is confined to 1/4th share in the 1/4th share held by his father, Doddapillappa. It is further submitted that the pleadings already contain the necessary foundational facts and that the petitioner has led both oral and documentary evidence on the relevant aspects. Learned counsel, therefore, fairly undertakes that the petitioner shall not seek permission to adduce any further evidence consequent upon the proposed amendment, particularly since the matter has already reached the stage of arguments.

11. In the backdrop of these undisputed and admitted facts, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Judge has failed to examine the substance of the proposed amendment in the context of the relief already sought in the plaint.

12. The real controversy between the branches represented by the petitioner and the respondents is with regard to the 1/4th share which was granted to

Verified

HC-KAR

Doddapillappa in the re-granted Inam land. While the petitioner claims a share therein by succession, the defence of the respondents is that even the said 1/4th share had been partitioned and there had been severance of the joint status.

13. Thus, the central issue which requires adjudication is whether there was a partition or severance in respect of the 1/4th share held by Doddapillappa and, consequently, whether the petitioner is entitled to claim a share therein. Both parties have already adduced evidence touching upon this controversy. Therefore, the proposed amendment would facilitate adjudication of the real controversy between the parties rather than introduce a new cause of action unconnected with the existing pleadings.

14. There is yet another significant aspect which cannot be lost sight of. Even assuming that the amendment is declined, the petitioner would not be

Verified

HC-KAR

precluded from instituting an independent suit for partition, subject of course to all questions of limitation and other defences available in law. Such a course would inevitably result in multiplicity of proceedings, notwithstanding the fact that the foundational dispute is already before the Trial Court and the parties have adduced evidence.

15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Another AIR 2002 SC 3369 has emphasized that amendments which facilitate determination of the real controversy and avoid multiplicity of proceedings ought ordinarily to be permitted, particularly where the proposed amendment does not fundamentally alter the nature of the dispute between the parties.

16. In the present case, the petitioner has not sought to substitute the original cause of action with an entirely different cause of action. The claim that he is

Verified

HC-KAR

entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property is already embedded in the original plaint. The proposed prayer for partition is essentially consequential to, and in aid of, the declaration already sought.

17. It is also relevant that the petitioner has approached the Court asserting a specific share in the suit property. Merely because the suit was initially framed as one for declaration of entitlement to 1/4th share, the incorporation of a consequential prayer for partition cannot, in the facts of the present case, be regarded as altering the fundamental nature or character of the suit. The proposed amendment does not substantially displace the defence of the respondents. On the contrary, it enables the Trial Court to conclusively adjudicate the dispute regarding the alleged severance and entitlement of the petitioner to the share claimed.

18. The fact that the application was filed at the stage of arguments, by itself, cannot be determinative

Verified

HC-KAR

when the amendment is otherwise necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute. The delay can be adequately balanced by imposing appropriate conditions. In the present case, the petitioner has voluntarily undertaken not to lead any further evidence on the proposed amendment. The respondents can also be permitted to file a limited written statement confined to the amended pleadings.

19. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents has no application to the facts of the present case. The present case is distinguishable on facts and, more importantly, the proposed amendment does not introduce a new and inconsistent cause of action so as to alter the basic structure of the suit.

20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the order impugned suffers from an erroneous and overly technical approach and cannot be sustained. The petitioner deserves to be permitted to amend the plaint, subject to appropriate safeguards.

Verified

HC-KAR

21. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 14.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.172/2012 by the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur, vide Annexure-E, is hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) The petitioner-plaintiff is permitted to incorporate the proposed amendment to the plaint. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to adduce any further oral or documentary evidence on account of the proposed amendment.

(iv) The respondents/defendants shall be permitted to file a limited written statement, confined to the pleadings incorporated by way of amendment.

(v) Upon completion of the aforesaid formalities, the learned Trial Court shall proceed

Verified

HC-KAR

with the matter and adjudicate the suit on its merits, in accordance with law, preferably within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Verified