3 WP E2350/O9 81
VV1' 14990/O9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4'?" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE }\/IRJUSTICE A.s.PAcHHApI}REV.'_*V:-fii 5 _
WRIT PETITION NO.1235O OF 2009 ('C}ivi--~:(:ji?Q1~i: 4- _ O'
AND .,
WRIT PETITION NO. 14990 GE 2009; ((3vi.\/.i~.~.C'.P('i)'i A ;_s T
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1235001? 2009-.(GM;C?C'3'.s«: ::
BETWEEN K % O O O
Smt. Ningamma,
Aged about 76 years, _
W/0 Late Veerappai '
R/at Bychanahalily V}/illaige, O '
KushalnagarVV'TgIwfi;;:._
Somwairpet Taluk, '
Koclagu... DI:su-ict'; - ._ *
- PETITIONER/S
[Sri. B.S.N'agaraj,"Ad'V';) = V
ANQQO "
.HIK.Jayanihi
" _W'~,./_c.>i H':I,.VKaribasappa
- ._ IAgedv.,absV'u'E 40 years,
' R/ai.;sA%i"5B1ock
Si_ddai.€1h Puranaika Extension
Kushalnagar Town
I _ S'emwarpetTa1uk,
V " Kodagu District.
2% O Sr1'.B.V.Suresha
Aged about 39 years,
53/ 0 Late Veerappa
R/at Bychanahally Village.
Opp:Pe€:r0l Bunk,
2 XV?' 12350/O9 &
WP 14990 /09
Kushalnagar T own.
Somwarpet. Taluk,
Kodagu District.
3. Sri Rajeev
Aged about 45 years
S/0 B.S.Radha1{rishI1a, Deed Writer
R/ at Kushalnagar Town,
Somwarpet Taluk,
Kodagu District.
{Sri. G.Ba1akrishI1a Shastry. Adv.) T A V '
IN WRIT PETITION NO.1499O 0952009 (GM;cP_§:1 '
BETWEEN
Smt. Ningar__nI'I1"a,_ _.
Aged about ''76 years, ~
W/0 Later..Veer2ip}i+1_, ._
R/at Bychariah5a1_i1y '{{iiiag'e,z'
Kushainagzir T0WI'i';- T "
Sornwarpet Taluky, ._ 1
Kodagu District. ' "
" PETITIONER/S
IL Sri. H.i,.Karibasappa
Aged -?lb'Ol.1t 43 years.
R/a._t, 4"? Biock.
n I Sicldaiah Puranaika Extension
' L " ~,.'Kusha1nagar Town
..*S0rr1Warpet Taluk,
Kodagu District.
" Sri. B.V.Suresha
Aged about 39 years.
S/0 Late Veerappa
.f.-r.RE;sIPoIsmIm.s1
3 VVP 12350/09 81
WP 14990/O9
R/at Bychanahally Village.
Opp. Petrol bunk
Kushalnagar Town.
Somwarpet. Taluk,
Kodagu District.
3. Sri Rajeev
Aged about 45 years 1 ' « i_
S/ o B.S.Radhakrishna. Deed Writ_er..
R/at Kushalnagar Town, 4'
Somwarpet Taluk, T
Kodagu District.
..l 'rLést3oN;oE:NT/s
{Sri. G.Balakrishna Shalstry, ~
These Writ }§§fe"tit.ior1s are filed ur1'c1e--r' Article 226 of the
Constitution "o'f.__h'i.di]a 'Vp«r_a.y"ir.1g '~--toyqu_ash the order dated
9.4.2009 p'-a,sseg_d'_.» in l.'.A.lE~Io.V1'~Atand VII in O.S.No.28 &
29/200.3,. on_ the' fill-:;_of thev._CiVii--~J.u_d'ge (Jr. DVn.] and JMFC,
at Sonjlwarpletg in 'which«V.iailco\2\zi.ng the application of the
defendant No.1 toa-;1}.end"*tche~.Written statement a copy of the
said order is=sub'nj1itted_ at~.A11e:»{--J and etc.
Writ ..I}letitioV11s having been heard and reserved,
foizpronodlrilcement of Orders, this day, the Court
' made 'the. fol] o'u{ir1--g:
ORDER
‘”l’l3el* petitioner is the plaintiff, whereas the
it j’respo;i–‘idents are the defendant Nos.l t.o 3 in the suit
_bearing O.S.No.28/2003 seeking the relief of declaration
that the sale deed dated 16.04.2001 registered in the
………. ..
4 WP 12350/O9 8:
VVP l 4990/O9
office of Sub–Registrar, Somwarpet is an irnfalid
document and is not binding upon the plaintiff-4jar1;.Ci«.;fo.r
cancellation of the said sale deed.
2. Likewise, the plaintiff ;,also..4ir1}st’it1ited.
suit in O.S.No.29/2003. 1t?iS__ the”‘ca’se of.’tViie:;;}.laili1tiff if
that they have never executed:sa_le of the
defendants at any rneasiiring one
acre out of Survey {lrummanakolli
Village, ‘Alter the written
staterrientsl allegations made, the
Trial :C§Aourt -‘ and PW~l was under
examination. ” V V’
thisjiincture, the defendants filed an
the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
r/W-.$ec_..~ of C.P.C. for deletion of the Word in Page
No.1 and 13111 Line afterword’s “several
odisciissions regarding price” and for insertion of another
l paragraph in the written statement in both the suits. As
“could be seen from the pleadings, it reveals that 40
o.’ /_,
4 \,
iv]: ,,,,,, W
5 ‘NP l2350/O9 81
WE’ 149530/O9
cents of land in the suit Survey No.76 was sold to one
defendant and 60 cents was sold to another defendant
in the said suit. The plaintiffipetitioner fil’€d”«d_’li€I’
objections to this application contending
admission made by the first defendant fl
is being withdrawn by the amen’drnen’t
therefore, it was her corite’1i.tionAl”that.vppthelilproposedl”V
amendment cannot be. granted./hiUri-xothese ‘grounds, she
sought for dismissal of the
4_._ he counsel for the parties
and record, has allowed the
application first defendant in both the
suits to~amend»._.the Virritten statement and aggrieved by
l these petitions have been filed by the
plai.ntilfi’llu.”.j:..
have heard the learned Counsel appearing
petitioner and also the respondents. It is
eonterition of the petitioner that there was an admission
the part of the defendant No.1 in both. the suits to
5.!
z”‘y
.4 N.
6 WP 12350/O9 82.
WP 14990/O9
the effect that the plaintiff had quoted Rs.70,000/– for
one acre of land and the defendant No.1 had finally
agreed to purchase one acre of land at
This Portion of the written statement has to”-..3,:3’€~
and the contention that the plaintiff ‘had ‘ioffei-e,d»’pri_ce”
Rs.5,65,000/– in addition to other: facts
the execution of agreement oiflsaie and”the persons who
were present as attestiiig persor1s,.etVc7;~.,duringAA execution
of the sale deed is sought to inserte_’d._’.in the Written
statement. €to”‘hei’,.::th’e’admission made by
the being’ withdrawn from the
proposed ,,amend.mient’gandsuch an amendment cannot
be granted. uh’
-this aspect of the matter, the counsel
the decision of the Apex Court in the
‘V..pcase’offiH_EERAIAL v. KALYAN MAL & ores. reported in
A (Civil) 41, wherein the Apex Court held that
in} case where there is admission in the written
statement, the amendment seeking to Withdraw such
admission cannot be allowed, if such withdrawal wouid
f
‘~.’ W “M .- V
7 \VP 12350/O9 8:.
WP 1.4990/O9
amount to totally displacing the case of plaintiff–___and
which would cause him irretrievable prejudiced.
7. Now, as could be seen from if
in the pleadings of the parties, it:-is”‘a’–sp&ecific.the”;
plaintiff that she never sold measyuring
acre out of revision Survey at
any time. It is her COriff3.11tiOiilllthifil; docurnent is bad
for want of consideration.-lhylt ‘is; als_o_:ll1ervcontention that
the defe11dant’xi\’I:yf;,1lging cases has taken
disadvantage also claims that there
was fraud– played’-».loy.the”defendants and they got the
land throiigh. llllthlej deed dated 15.04.2001.
Accoizdiing to Ifthe.._..1Z)lai.11tiff, there is no question of
1’eceiVi11g’~any”sale consideration by the defendants at
thenltirne alleged sale transaction. Whereas, the
‘.V.defendalln1_t No.1 in the written statement in both the
A though initially claimed that the plaintiff
proposed to purchase the land for Rs.70.000/– per acre
if has sought: for its deletion contending that the land was
re
1
, ../
.< '-w,.,g
8 \VP 12350/09 &
WE' E4990/09
agreed to be purchased for an amount of Rs.E3,65,000/~
and there were agreements for sale between the parties-
8. In my considered opinion, it daesi.fl’r:1ot
amount to any admission and in the eircum’st.anees M
cannot be said that the admissi:on”is«
In that View of the matter, theA:4’deC.ision».’:;_fhthe
Court referred supra is not”‘a}T5p1iCat)Ie._t0.et’he”.faets on
hand.
9. These petitions” any merit.
Hence; they accordingly.
Sdf;
JUDGE
m»;.__V
