Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.Jayachandra Prasad vs Smt.Indira Devi on 10 March, 2014
Author: Mohan .M.Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.6315/2014 (GM-CPC
BETWEEN:
SRI.K.JAYACHANDRA PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O LATE J. KRISHNAMURTHY,
RESIDING AT NO. 2031/C,
NEXT TO HP PETROL PUMP, B.M ROAD,
RAMANAGARA PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.S. NAGARAJA RAO, ADV.)
AND:
1.SMT.INDIRA DEVI
W/O G. VENKATARAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/A. NO.7/13A, K.V.K STSREET, ALANDOOR,CHENNAI 16
2.SMT.K. MANMOHAN PRASAD
S/O LATE J. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 782, (FRONT PORTION) BALEPET,
RAMANAGARA
3.SMT. PREMA
W/O. LATE PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 782,
BALEPET,
RAMANAGARA
4.SMT. SARASWATHI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
W/O. SATHYANANDA PRASAD,
R/A. NO.38, NAGAPPA IYER STREET, TIPLICANE, CHENNAI
-2-
5.SMT. UMADEVI
W/O LATE SHIVA PRASAD PANDE,
RESIDING AT NO.22-1-6, SADHU STRILA MATHAM VEEDHI,
VEERABHADHRA PURAM,
RAJAMUNDRY ... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO CALL
FOR RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRINICIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE [SR.DN] RAMANGARA IN OS.NO73/11.
QUASH THE ORDER DT.2.1.14, PASSED IN OS.NO.73/11,
BY THE HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE [SR.DN] & CJM,
RAMANGARA ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/O VI RULE 17 OF
CPC., BY ALLOWING THE SAME AT ANN-A BY ALLOWING THIS
WP.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER
By the impugned order dated 2.1.2014, the Court below has allowed the application for amendment of the plaint.
Sri K.S. Nagaraja Rao, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Court below ought not to have allowed the application for amendment of the plaint, questioning the validity of settlement deed dated 27.3.1972 and its binding effect on the plaintiff. He relied upon Section 6 of the amended Hindu Succession Act to contend that whatever has happened prior to 2005 should not be re-opened. Merely because an -3- application for amendment of plaint is made, aforesaid question raised by the petitioner herein (the original defendant) should not be treated to have been decided by the Court below. The said question is still to be considered by the Court below, while deciding the suit.
2. With this observation, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG*