WP/16377/2019 of SMT. RATHNAMMA Vs SMT. GOWRAMMA on 19 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners-plaintiffs are before this Court calling in question the common order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, on the applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, whereby the applications seeking amendment of the plaint and consequential impleadment of the proposed defendant No.19 came to be rejected.

2. The proposed defendant No.19 is stated to have purchased one of the suit schedule properties from the defendants under a registered sale deed dated 02.12.1994. The learned Trial Judge has rejected the applications principally on the ground that the alienation was effected in the year 1994 and that the proposed amendment, seeking to question the said alienation, was sought after a lapse of nearly 24 years and was, therefore,

Verified

HC-KAR

barred by limitation. It is this order which is assailed in these writ petitions.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Respondent No.19 has entered appearance through learned counsel in the connected W.P.No.16377/2019.

4. The controversy requires consideration in the backdrop of the peculiar facts of the case. The plaintiffs, by way of amendment, seek to implead respondent No.19 as defendant No.19, who is admittedly a purchaser of only one of the several suit schedule properties. The proposed amendment is directed against the alienation of an item of the ancestral property in favour of respondent No.19.

5. It is no doubt well settled that a stranger purchaser of an undivided interest in a joint family property is ordinarily not a necessary party to a partition suit and that the parties cannot, as a matter of right, insist upon impleadment of such a purchaser. However, the facts

Verified

HC-KAR

of the present case stand on a different footing. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that the husband of defendant No.4 and father of defendant Nos.5 to 8, namely, Venkateshappa, without their knowledge or consent, alienated one of the suit schedule properties in favour of respondent No.19 under the registered sale deed dated 02.12.1994.

6. A perusal of the plaint schedule discloses that the suit concerns several agricultural properties. The principal relief sought by the plaintiffs is one of partition and separate possession. The challenge to the alienation is only consequential to and incidental to the principal relief of partition. In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Jayamma v. Smt. Laxmi, in RFA No.174/2006 and connected matters, has held that where a cause of action accrues to a non-alienating coparcener to institute a suit for partition on the ground that an alienation effected by another coparcener is not binding on his or her

Verified

HC-KAR

legitimate share, the principal relief remains one of partition and separate possession, and the plaintiff is required only to seek a formal declaration that such alienation is not binding on his or her share.

7. In the present case, the formal relief in respect of the alienation is sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge, in treating the proposed amendment as an independent challenge to the sale deed dated 02.12.1994 and rejecting the application solely on the ground of limitation, has failed to appreciate the nature of the suit and the relief sought therein.

8. It is also relevant to note that the suit itself was instituted in the year 2015. In the peculiar facts of the case, the presence of respondent No.19 in the suit would, in fact, facilitate an effective and complete adjudication of the rights of all concerned in respect of the property purchased by him. His impleadment would also enable him

Verified

HC-KAR

to place before the Court all contentions available to him in law and protect his interest in the property purchased under the registered sale deed dated 02.12.1994.

9. Even assuming that the alienation in favour of respondent No.19 is ultimately held to be binding on the share of defendant No.4, the consequence of such alienation can be appropriately worked out while adjusting the shares and equities at the stage of drawing up the final decree. The value of the property alienated can be taken into consideration while allotting properties to the concerned sharer. If respondent No.19 establishes that he has made improvements or incurred expenditure in respect of the property, it would also be open to him to place such material before the Final Decree Court and seek appropriate equitable adjustment in accordance with law.

10. Viewed from this perspective, the impleadment of respondent No.19 assumes significance, notwithstanding the general proposition that a stranger

Verified

HC-KAR

purchaser of an undivided interest is not ordinarily a necessary party to a partition suit. His presence would enable the Court to effectively adjudicate upon the effect of the alienation and, if necessary, work out the equities at the stage of final decree proceedings.

11. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation, without examining the nature of the principal relief sought in the suit and the legal effect of the alienation in the context of the partition proceedings, cannot be sustained. The reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Judge proceeds on an erroneous appreciation of the nature of the proposed amendment and consequently suffers from perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. In fact, having regard to the nature of the relief sought and the interest claimed by respondent No.19 under the registered sale deed dated 02.12.1994, his

Verified

HC-KAR

presence in the proceedings would serve the interest of a complete and effective adjudication. He would have the opportunity to contest the claim of the plaintiffs and establish the nature and extent of the rights claimed by him in respect of the property purchased by him.

13. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions merit consideration. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Both the writ petitions are allowed.

(ii) The common order dated 04.07.2018 passed in O.S.No.15/2015 by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, on the applications filed under Order I Rule 10(2) and Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) Consequently, the applications filed by the plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10(2) and

Verified

HC-KAR

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are allowed.

(iv) The plaintiffs are permitted to carry out the proposed amendment to the plaint and implead respondent No.19 as defendant No.19.

(v) The plaintiffs shall carry out the amendment to the plaint within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(vi) Defendant No.19 is permitted to file his written statement and raise all such contentions as are available to him in law.

(vii) All contentions of the parties, including those relating to the validity and binding nature of the alienation and the equities arising therefrom, are left open to be adjudicated by the Trial Court in accordance with law.

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Verified