WP 344} 2/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,
BEFORE > L. 3
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1eE E.s.pA'11~EZi'
W.P.No.34412/2009:'»('GN§~L5P(5}J 4'
BETWEEN: A' 1'
SR1 H.M.RAVINDRA KUMAR.
Aged about 49 years.
S/O Sri C.H.Madan La},
R/at NO. 19, _ .
Someshwar Koil Street, '
Ulsoor, ' _
BaI1ga1Ore~560 4' PETITIONER
{By Sri K.K.va§sgn:;:§;;_,Ad&;3» =
AND:
1. SR1 M.KESHAVA"REQD'f,"*~ J
Aged _abOut'51 'yea1fs, '
S / 0' 1a'teuMunis Wgrnappa,
- § R/.:;1_'N0___._1 1st cross;-~« *
V' Lingayyanapalya.
_
Ba.+.1g_aI*ore 0'08.
2. sri"O.Atq'A1~.I13),
Aged abcszt 57 years.
" S/To Sri=Chi1<kananjappa,
R/E£t..NO.39/12, 7"' Main,
' _ 'Appajreddypalya.
hgdiranagar,
% .,._Eianga10re--560 038.
SE1 GOPINATH REDDY.
Aged about 47' years,
8/ O late Chinnathambi Reddy,
WP 34412/2009
R/at No.6, 15' 'B' Cross.
Behind Sandya Talkies,
Old Madivala,
Bar1galore--560 068. RESPONDENTIS
(By Sri K.M.Somaiah, Adv. for R1,
Sri A.V.Rajendra Babu. Advxfor R2.
Sri B.N.Jayadeva, Adv. for R3)
This Writ Petition is filed under.Articles ’22s1:’aa’e1’v227 of”
the Constitution of India, praying” to call’: for-_reco.rds’ in
O.S.No.793/O3 on the file of the 1: Add:1;’C.i.vi1″Judge (s,i~;I)fi.n’a;
Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, and etc.
This petition coming on for”‘Preliminary_Hearing day,
the Court made the following:
1. Order datec1_t31_.1o.:2’o’os:I’pass.ed_V_by learned 11 Add].
Civil Rural District, in
O.S.No.793/’?.-Q03_ No.19 and rejecting the prayer
___made .,ft{jrlVai11end1l.)i1e.titv of the plaint is called in question in this
A ‘ ~ .w1’it vp,etiti_on.. , it ”
. ‘”Retit:ettse: isthe plaintiff in the Trial Court. He has filed
V the suit declaration of his title to the suit schedule
‘bearing sy. No.134~/1, Khatha No.134/1 situated at
l_l_i__)lo’dda’Lhogur village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
T –ll_4:m’easuring 80′ X 60’ with certain specific boundaries. He has
Sought for a declaration that the sale deed dated
WP 34412/2009
13.03.2000 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant
No.2 and the sale deed dated 30.09.2002 executed
No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 were not bindingon»
his case that defendant No.1 after selling 2
petitionenplaintiff on 26.07.1989 haas;_e1andestin.e1y».effected’a_
further sale illegally in favour at-.r.1:é:rendafit.:\:o.2: fqn””~’1.é’;’03’.’2000l’
and defendant No.2 has.» 2th? Sa2m’e’*~inv’V:favour of
defendant No.3 on 30.09.2002. ”
3. Defendant” contending
inter alia that of land in Sy. No.l34/ 1
from andhlthverefore had become the
absolute owner of measuring 0.4.65 guntas. He
furtherycontenldedv that under a sale deed dated 18.08.2003 Sri
_Vend0r yvho”‘had acquired title to the portion of the
conveyed 0.4.65 guntas of land in his
favourfifandp”xa.s*:: such he asserted that himself and his
predecessor=;:in~title had absolute title to the property and
plaintiffcannot claim any portion of the property comprised in
No. 134/1.
After the evidence commenced and defendant No.3
produced the registered sale deed dated 18.08.2003. plaintiff
%”
WP 344 £2/2009
4
filed this application seeking amendment of the plaint
incorporating in the prayer coiumn particulars of the sale deed
dated 18.08.2003 stating that the same was also as not lbiriding
on him. This was resisted and the Trial Court has;”‘rejected7
application holding that after a lapse of three…ye_ars pp
date of filing of the written state1ri1entA’p’and_yp
commenced, the application seeking amenldmentéirasvlvmadie and’ *’
hence the same could not be alloyved)»
5. I have heard the Vl*€arned*'”Counslei’.for the” parties and
Derused the materials on record. 7
6. In 1.app1i’;:at:.c}fr1 —plaintiff has contended that the
very same to him which he had purchased
__in 199.9!has been again sought to be sold by defendant No.2 in
utefaifotirl uf_fid:efend.ant No.3 on 18.08.2003 by describing it this
tiriielbypgluiitas. It is thus clear that the grievance made
V by by the”p1ai.ntiff’l’in the plaint as originally filed and by way of the
:'”v4.”‘present application, relates to the same property. The plaintiff
not’ laying claim in respect of any other property apart from
‘:l_”thve—-lplaint schedule property by way of incorporating the new
it ‘relief.
WP34412/2009
5
7. His specific assertion is that the sale deed dated
18.08.2003 in respect whereof the present amendment is
sought pertains to the same land which was sold in faivottr of
the plaintiff and which was subsequently illegally
defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 and thereafte_r00″i;=y defendaiit
No.2 to defendant No.3. In such circumstan.ces’. ‘relief
sought by the petitioner by way of amendment is .:g1fan’te’d,n
not be against the ends of justice”~a3s”iplaintiffnotaattlefmpting V
to introduce any new subject rntatterf;noi*.._is 1’1e0Va’ss’erting any
right based on any new causeof ‘all he intends to
incorporate is eV_en*:th’_e. sate pertained to
the same,property’:w:hiCh”dhefendant No.2 sold in favour of
defendant No.3 deed dated 30.09.2003, but this
__time yjnfillvthe salegldeedidated 18.08.2003 the property is
-gu.ntas. Thus, in my view is there no legal
impeditnentlffto.”allow this amendment in order to adjudicate the
V 3′ _disput”e be=twe’en the parties fully and finally.
is .Learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance
po_n’ffh’eji1dgment in the case of RAJKUMAR GURAWARA (DEAD)
‘:fri=zr<ioUGH ms vs M/S. S.K.SARWAGI 8: co. PVT. LTD. 8: ANR. —
'fiiR5"2O08 SC 2303, to contend that such belated amendment
WP 34412/2009
should not be allowed, particularly because the relief by
the plaintiff by way of amendment has been barredfby: if H
9. I have carefully perused the judgment the
learned Counsel and find that in the’:.saidicase;~.at
arguments, the plaintiff had soujghtppto incorpora’tveAa:.__total1y new” i
material that too by impleading and in
such circumstances, held that such
amendment could not be circumstances
of the present haye no parallel to the
facts and decided by the Apex
Court.
10. Hencefthis is allowed. The impugned order
is set The ‘ap.pliCNac;’tion IA No.19 is allowed. Petitioner
A”shall’car1y:ouyt* amendment with the permission of the court
below.f’l.~.,Vi’
Séf
lodge
Vt ,