Karnataka High Court
WP/24260/2023 of SMT. SUMITRA Vs SMT. JAYAMMA on 1 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010563682023 NC: 2026:KHC:47395 W.P. No.24260/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A . PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.24260/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUMITRA W/O LATE NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 64
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.24260/2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. SUMITRA
W/O LATE NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT BEHIND MANJUNATHA TALKIES
ARAKERE VILLAGE, ARAKERE HOBLI
S.R. PATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571401.
2.
SRI. C. VASU
S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA
AGED 61 YEARS
KYATHUMGERE VILLAGE
KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK
3.
SMT. VASANTHA
W/O LINGAPPA
D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA
AGED 59 YEARS
R/AT MARUTHI NAGARA
1ST BLOCK, BANDAHALLI ROAD
BEHIND VENKATESHWARA BAR
ANNUR TALUK, ANNUR
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT 571111.
4.
SMT. SHIVARATNA
D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA
AGED 58 YEARS
R/AT PALAHALLI VILLAGE
BELGOOLA HOBLI
S.R. PATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571438.
Digitally signed
by RUPA V
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
5.
SMT. INDRAMMA
W/O K.B. APPAJI
D/O LATE LINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT. KOMMERAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DIST – 571402.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VRATHIN N.K. ADV., FOR
SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADV.,)
AND:
1.
SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT KYATHUMGERE VILLAGE
KOTHATHI HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571403.
2.
SRI. SHIVAPRASAD
S/O LATE BORALINGEGOWDA
AGED 56 YEARS.
3.
SMT. LATHA
W/O LATE KRISHNA
AGED 51 YEARS.
4.
SRI. SUPRITH
S/O LATE KRISHNA
AGED 30 YEARS.
5.
SMT. SUPRIYA
D/O LATE KRISHNA
AGED 28 YEARS.
6.
SMT. P.B. PADMA
W/O SANNAPPA
D/O LATE BORALINGEGOWDA
AGED 54 YEARS
R/AT SHANTHASI NILAYA
HC-KAR
2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS
VIDYARANYAPURAM
MYSURU 570008.
7.
SMT. KALADEVI P.B.
D/OLATE BORALINGEGOWDA
AGED 52 YEARS
R/AT GEJJALAGERE VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571428
PROPRIETOR OF SRINIDHI CABLE NETWORKS
GEJJALAGERE VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571428.
8.
SMT. SHASHIREKHA
W/O SURENDRA
D/O LATE BORALINGEGOWDA
AGED 51 YEARS.
R2 TO R5 & R8 ARE
R/AT PANAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571402.
9.
SMT. BANASHANKARI
W/O LATE SHIVANANJU
D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA
AGED 56 YEARS
KYATHUMGERE VILLAGE
KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK
10.
SRI. R.G. GURUSWAMY
S/O GURUMALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT RAGIBOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KIRAGAVALU HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571 430.
11.
SRI. C.M. RAGHU
S/O MAHADEVAPPA
HC-KAR
AGED 48 YEARS.
12.
SMT. H.N. GOWRAMMA
W/O H.M. NANJUNDAIAH
AGED 60 YEARS
R/AT HEBBAKAVADI VILLAGE
KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571403.
13.
SRI. M. RAVI KUMAR
S/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGED 42 YEARS.
R11 & R13 ARE R/AT
CHIKKAMALAGUDU VILLAGE
KIRAGAVALU HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571424.
14.
SRI. B.N. UMESHA
S/O NAGARAJACHAR
AGED 38 YEARS
R/AT BABY VILLAGE
CHINNAKURALI HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571455.
15.
SRI. K.M. KRISHNA
S/O MADEGOWDA
AGED 38 YEARS
R/AT KARI URALIKOPPALU VILLAGE
MENISIKYATHANAHALLI DAKALE
BANNUR HOBLI
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT 571124.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DTD 22.08.2023 PASSED ON IA 4 IN OS NO.545/2017 BY THE
COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC MANDYA AS PER
ANNX-H AND REJECT THE SAID APPLICATION FILED BY THE R- 1 BY ALLOWING THIS W.P. WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT & ETC.
HC-KAR
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.08.2023 passed on IA.No.4 in OS.No.545/2017 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya (for short ‘the trial Court’).
2. Heard Sri.Vrathin N.K., learned counsel appearing for Sri.Y.K.Narayana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
3. Respondent No.1 filed a suit in OS.No.545/2017 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of her 9/24th share in the suit schedule properties and for mesne profits. The defendants filed their detailed written statements denying the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1, and the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW1. At that stage, the
HC-KAR
plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The trial Court, under the impugned order allowed the application.
4. A perusal of the proposed amendment indicates that in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the plaint, the plaintiff seeks to carry out certain corrections which were factually incorrect with regard to the checkbandis and boundaries. In my concerned view, allowing such correction would not cause any prejudice or harm to the other side.
5. Insofar as the proposed amendment to paragraph No.8 of the plaint, by insertion of additional paragraph No.8(a) is concerned, the plaintiff seeks to introduce a specific pleading that she had adopted a daughter by name Aiswarya Raj, from her parents Sri.T.Rajanna and Smt.K.C.Prathima, under a registered
HC-KAR
adoption deed dated 03.10.2018 and the event of adoption is after filing of the suit.
6. It is to be noticed that the suit filed by the plaintiff is one for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the plaintiff seeks to bring on record the factual matrix i.e. the adoption of a daughter during the pendency of the suit. In my considered view, the same would not cause any prejudice or affect the contentions raised by the defendants. Hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference. It is open for the defendants to file additional written statement by raising appropriate contentions. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The defendants are permitted to file additional written statement, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24