Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kavitha G vs Dr. Gangadhar R on 23 January, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4104
WP No. 1925 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1925 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. KAVITHA G.,
W/O. SRI. A. SHAILENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.76, 4TH MAIN,
SATHYANARAYANA LAYOUT,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. TEJAS, FOR
SRI. R. B. SADASIVAPP, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. DR. GANGADHAR R.,
S/O. LATE SRI. B. RACHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
Digitally signed
R/AT NO.29, GROUND FLOOR,
by CHANDANA 1ST STAGE, 4TH MAIN, KHB COLONY,
BM
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
Location: High
Court of BENGALURU - 560 079.
Karnataka
2. SMT. G. ANITHA,
W/O. SRI. K. S. VENUGOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.54, HIG, 4TH MAIN,
KHB COLONY, 1ST PHASE,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR C / R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4104
WP No. 1925 of 2026
HC-KAR
CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
08/12/2025 PASSED BY THE 25TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE. JUDGE. BENGALURU (CCH-23) ON I.A. NO.7 IN
O.S. NO.3588/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PARTLY AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE AMENDMENT
WHICH IS REJECTED BY THE TRIAL COURT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.3588/2002 on the file of the 25th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.VII, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was partly allowed by the trial Court, which rejected the request to include Item No.2 of the Schedule 'A' property and include para 16(a), 16(c) and prayer 1(b) sought for by the petitioner-plaintiff.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.
-3-NC: 2026:KHC:4104 WP No. 1925 of 2026 HC-KAR
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for partition, declaration and for other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property.
Subsequent to the said suit having been contested by the respondents- defendants, during the course of trial, the petitioner -
plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint as hereunder:
UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Plaintiff above named prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit the Plaintiff to amend the plaint in the following manner, in the interest of Justice and equity To add Item No.2 in Schedule 'A' Property in the plaint The site property bearing No.472. BBMP khatha No.987/766/642/638/472 in the layout formed by the Remco (BHEL) House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., situated at Pattanagere village. BHEL Layout, Rajarajeshwarinagar Extension, Bengaluru South Taluk, presently comes under the jurisdiction of BBMP, measuring East to West 40 ft. and -4- NC: 2026:KHC:4104 WP No. 1925 of 2026 HC-KAR North to South 60 ft., totally measuring 2.400 sq. ft. and bounded on the;
East by: Site No.473;
West by: Site No. 471;
North by: Road;
South by: BHEL Layout Road.
To add Para 16(a), 16(b) and 16(c) after para 16 in the plaint 16(a) The Plaintiff submits that she recently leamt that the item No.2 of the schedule 'A' property is also the joint family property and the some was gifted by the 1st Defendant without the knowledge of the Plaintiff in favour of the 2nd Defendant by name Smt. Anitha G., under registered gift deed dated 27/08/2012 and the said gift is a void document as the Defendant had no authority to gift in favour of the 2nd Defendant as the Plaintiff also has got her legitimate share in the said property. i.e.. Item No.2 in schedule 'A' property of the plaint since the same is obtained by the income/profit derived from the joint family property at Somanathapura as mentioned in Para No.7 of the plaint.
16 (b) The Plaintiff further submits that the cancellation of the gift deed dated 20/07/2012 by the Plaintiff is a void document since there were no such conditions described in the gift deed dated 09/02/2009 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:4104 WP No. 1925 of 2026 HC-KAR executed by the 1st Defendant and secondly, the 1st Defendant has not acted in terms of the cancellation deed as no arrangement is made in favour of the Plaintiff and the Donee having accepted the gift had no right to cancel the same and further even the Donor has not reserved his right to cancel/revoke the gift deed dated 09/02/2009 when the Donee have accepted the gift. Hence, the Plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit seeking the relief of partition, declaration and injunction.
16(C) The Plaintiff submits that the 1st Defendant has suppressed the properties obtained from the income and profits derived from the joint family property at Somanathapura. Hence, after getting the information and the documents pertaining to the same, the Plaintiff is constrained to bring the true and material facts to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court, along with documents.
Add Prayer 1(a) and 1(b) after Prayer '1' in the plaint 1(a) Declare that the cancellation of the gift deed dated 20/07/2012 executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff with respect to 1/3rd share of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule 'A' property is a void document and the same was obtained by the Defendant by playing fraud by giving false assurance to the Plaintiff as stated in the said deed itself and;
-6-NC: 2026:KHC:4104 WP No. 1925 of 2026 HC-KAR 1(b) Declare that the registered gift deed dated 27/08/2012 executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of the 2nd Defendant with respect to Item No.2 of the schedule 'A' property is not binding on the Plaintiff over her 1/3rd share and the same is a void document and the Plaintiff has got 1/3rd share in the item No.2 of the schedule 'A' property also and;
4. The said application having been opposed by the respondents-defendants, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order partly allowing the application and rejecting the request of the petitioner-plaintiff to include Item No. 2 in Schedule 'A' property as well as to include para 16(a), 16(c) and Prayer No.1(b) by the petitioner-plaintiff by holding as under:
"ORDERS ON I.A.No.VII I.A No.VII is filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC.
By way of amendment, the plaintiff is intended to include said property bearing No.472 as Item No.2 in the Schedule 'A' property. Further, she intends to add para 16(a), 16(b) and 16(c) after para 16 in the plaint.
2. It in the contention of the plaintiff that the property bearing No.472 is also joint family property and the defendant No 1 without her knowledge, executed Gift Deed -7- NC: 2026:KHC:4104 WP No. 1925 of 2026 HC-KAR in favour of defendant No.2 on 27.08.2012 and the same is a void document as this property was acquired by the defendant No.1 out of income derived from the joint family property at Somanathapura
3. Further, the plaintiff intends to contend that the cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 20.07.2012 by the plaintiff is a void since there was no such condition described in the Gift deed dated 09.02.2009 executed by the first defendant. Further, donor had no right to cancel the Gift Deed dated 09.02.2009. Further, the first defendant suppressed the properties obtained from the income of the properties at Somanathapura. In addition to it, the plaintiff is intended to add two prayers to the prayer column. One is to declare that cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 20.07.2012 executed by the first defendant, in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 1/3 share of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is a void document and obtained by him by playing fraud. Further, one more declaration that registered Gift Deed dated 27.08.2012 in respect of Item No.2 of said property is not binding on the plaintiff's 1/3rd share over the same
4. In order to claim the relief, the plaintiff has sworn to an affidavit and contented that the property No.472 was acquired by first defendant out of income from Somanathapura Village. But, this fact was suppressed by him and therefore this property is also joint family property and hence, it is just necessary to include the same in the schedule.-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:4104 WP No. 1925 of 2026 HC-KAR
5. In so far as this application is concerned, the defendants have filed their objection and contended that site No.472 is not the property purchased by or acquired by the defendant No.1 out of joint family income. Originally, one Smt. Kamalanarayan was the applicant and accordingly BHEL House Building Co-operative Society allotted that site in her favour and she had paid advance sale consideration of Rs.10,202/- and another sum of Rs.3,000 and a sum of Rs.10,000 and another sum of Rs.10,000. Accordingly receipts were issued in her favour and she had taken a decision to transfer her membership in favour of Smt. V. Lakshmamma, mother-in-law of defendant No.2 and later V. Lakshmamma had paid a sum of Rs.1,500/-. Accordingly, the Society had issued allotment letter in favour of Smt. V. Lakshmamma on 17.10.2000 and she was died on 09.09.2001 and thereafter at the request of her son, the allotment was transferred in the name of Dr. R. Gangadhar, the first defendant. The total amount for execution of sale deed was Rs.1,50,000 and Smt. Kamalanarayan had paid a sum of Rs.33,000 and balance consideration of Rs.1.17,000 was paid by Smt. Kamalanarayan and Smt. Lakshmanma had paid a sum of Rs.67,500 to the Society and she cleared the sale consideration amount and as a result representative of the family of V. Lakshmamma, Sale Deed was executed in favour of father-in-law of first defendant. Therefore, this property is not the property of first defendant acquired right of joint family income. The first defendant neither purchased nor paid any consideration amount to the Society and therefore, this property is not at all the joint -9- NC: 2026:KHC:4104 WP No. 1925 of 2026 HC-KAR family property as has been contented by the plaintiff. Hence, prayed for rejection of application.
6. Heard.
7. Now the points that are arisen for the due consideration of this Court:
1. Whether the proposed amendment is just and necessary to decide the dispute in controversy ?
2. What order?
8. My findings to the above said points are hereunder:
Point No.1: In the Partly affirmative Point No.2: As per the final order for the following REASONS
9. Point No.1 :- It is relevant to note that as per the contention of the plaintiff, site No.472 was acquired by the first defendant out of income derived from joint family property situated at Somanathapura. In order to show that at Somanathapura, first defendant had certain family properties, no material particulars are furnished.
10. The documentary evidence placed by the parties by the defendants would show that Smt. Kamala Narayan had paid Rs. 10,202/-on 25.02.1985, Rs.3,000, on 21.06.1986, Rs.10,000/- on 09.09.1987 Rs.10,000, on
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4104 WP No. 1925 of 2026 HC-KAR 04.02.1989, 1,510 + 1,500 on 14.06.2000. These receipts clearly indicate that originally Smt. Kamala Narayan was the member of BHEL House Building Co-operative Society and accordingly, she had paid definite some of money to the Society.
11. Further, a letter dated 15.06.2000 was issued to Smt. Kamala Narayan about approval being given by BHEL House Building Co-operative Society to transfer her share and site deposit in favour of V. Lakshmamma. This V. Lakshmamma is none other than mother-in-law of the defendant No.2 i.e., her husband's mother.
12. The defendants have also produced death certificate of V. Lakshmamma, one more letter dated 04.07.2002 issued in favour of defendant No. 1. As per this letter, the shares that were held in the name of V. Lakshmamma were transferred to the name of the first defendant. Further, a copy of allotment letter dated 17.10.2000 and Sale Deed dated 08.07.2002 are also produced with a possession certificate.
13. Now, one thing is clear that at the earliest point of time, it was Smt. Kamala Narayan who had paid the part of sale consideration as a member of the Society and subsequently, the balance amount was paid by Lakshmamma. However, allotment letter and sale deed was executed in the name of defendant No. 1 and subsequently he had bequeathed the same in favour of defendant No.2 on 27.08.2012.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4104 WP No. 1925 of 2026 HC-KAR
14. Thus, in the given circumstances, the documents that are relied by the defendants would show that the property now claimed by the plaintiff as that of joint family property is not at all ancestral and joint family property or that property acquired by the first defendant out of joint family income.
15. In so far as amendment is concemed, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the decision reported in (2005) 13 SCC 89, (2006) 4 SCC 385, (2015) 13 SCC 132, CA No.30324/2019, Judgment dated 05.03.2025 in CRP No.67/25.
16. By placing reliance on the above decisions, it was argued that amendment can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings. But here in this case, in respect of property No.472, the plaintiff has not produced any convincing evidence to prima facie show that the same was acquired by the first defendant out of joint family income. On the other hand, the defendants have produced clinching evidence to the effect that consideration amount was paid by Smt. Kamala Narayan and Lakshmamma. Hence, it is not at all necessary to permit the plaintiff to include this property as one of the property to the schedule.
17. In so far as other amendments sought for in respect of Gift Deed Cancellation Deed dated 20.07.2012 as has been claimed in para 16(b) and prayer No.1(a) is concemed, this amendment is just and necessary to decide the real dispute in controversy. However, the proposed
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4104 WP No. 1925 of 2026 HC-KAR amendment in respect of property No.472 is not at all required for the adjudication of the dispute. Accordingly, it is held that I.A.No.VII deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, Point No. 1 is answered in the partly affirmative.
18. Point No.2: In my findings on point No. in the partly affirmative, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1.A.No. VII filed under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC is allowed in part.
The request to include Item No. 2 in the schedule 'A' property and include para 16(a), 16(c) and prayer 1(b) is hereby rejected.
However, prayer of the plaintiff by way of proposed amendment to the plaint to include para 16(b) and prayer No.1(a) as has been requested in I.A No. VII is hereby allowed.
The plaintiff shall carry out the amendment to the plaint accordingly.
Under the circumstances, parties to the suit shall have to bear their own costs."
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4104 WP No. 1925 of 2026 HC-KAR
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
6. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the entire amendment as sought for by the petitioner-plaintiff and has proceeded to reject the aforesaid amendment sought for by the petitioner-plaintiff by adverting to the merits of the claim of the petitioner, which is impermissible in law in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Agarwal v. K.K. Modi and others - AIR 2006 SC 1647. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order passed by the trial Court partially rejecting the request for amendment is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. - (2022) 16 SCC 1 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Dharwad Bench in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr., Vs. Bandenawaz and Ors - W.P.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025.
7. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Ors. - AIR 2002 SC 3369 and LC Hanumanthappa v. HB Shivakumar - AIR
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4104 WP No. 1925 of 2026 HC-KAR 2015 SC 3364, the proper course of action would be to allow the amendment by directing that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of the application having been filed on 11.08.2025 by leaving open the question of limitation to be decided by the trial Court along with other issues in the suit.
8. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and dispose of I.A.No.VII filed by the petitioner-plaintiff and allow and dispose of I.A.No.VII by issuing certain directions.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 08.12.2025 in O.S.No.3588/2022 on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, is hereby set aside.
iii) I.A.No.VII filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is hereby allowed subject to the condition that the entire proposed
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4104 WP No. 1925 of 2026 HC-KAR amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of the amendment application being filed on 11.08.2025 and by leaving open the question/contention of limitation to be decided with other issues in the suit.
iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions.
v) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27