- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9943 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS, 1. SRI. SHIVASWAMY M, AGE 54 YEARS, 2. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY M AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 3. SRI. BASAVARAJ M AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. SRI. HARIKRISHNA M. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS Digitally signed by 5. SRI. MALLESH MSHARADAVANI B AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, Location: High Court of Karnataka ALL ARE SONS OF LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA R/O. GOTTIGERE POST, VADDARAPALYA, 8TH PHASE, JP NAGAR, KOTHANURU VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 086 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE) - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019 HC-KAR AND: 1. SRI GANESH M S/O. LATE. MUNISWAMAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 1A. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE GANESH @ GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 1B. SMT. GEETHA G. D/O. LATE GANESH @ GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 1C. SMT. HEMALATHA D/O. LATE GANESH @ GANESHAPPA W/O. RAGHU @ DAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 1D. SMT. JYOTHI W/O. LINGARAJU D/O. LATE GANESH @ GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT SEEGEPALYA SOMPURA HOBLI, KAMBALU POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 12.06.2026 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, 2ND FLOOR, THIMMAIAH COMPLEX, - 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019 HC-KAR GANDHINAGAR, BEHIND TRIBUVAN TALKIES, BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.V., CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. B.P. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R1 (A TOD)) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPGUNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2018 ON I.A.NO.9 VIDE ANNX-F PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA (BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT), IN O.S.202/2011 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE W.P. AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2018 passed on I.A.No.9 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.202/2011 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Nelamangala - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019 HC-KAR (Bangalore Rural District) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.202/2011 against the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 6 seeking relief of declaration that the gift deed dated 13.12.2010 does not bind the plaintiff and for the consequential relief of injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1 to 6. They contested the proceedings. The Trial Court framed the issues, and the matter was posted for recording of evidence. At that stage, defendant Nos.1 to 6 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the written statement. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and which came to be rejected by the Trial Court solely on the ground that the proposed amendment is introducing evidence in the pleadings. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019 HC-KAR

4. It is required to be noticed that, in the proposed amendment, the defendants are contending that the plaintiff produced a fabricated genealogy tree, which has been marked as Ex.P8, and that defendant No.4 had filed a private complaint against the plaintiff, pursuant to which the police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet. In my considered view, though such a pleading may not be strictly necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, however, these are the facts which the defendants intend to bring on record before the Court and which have taken place subsequent to the marking of Ex.P8. By allowing the said application, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff nor change the scope of suit. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 20.12.2018 passed on I.A.No.9 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019 HC-KAR O.S.No.202/2011 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Nelamangala is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, I.A.No.9 filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 6 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. iv) The defendants shall file the amended written statement within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9943 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS, 1. SRI. SHIVASWAMY M, AGE 54 YEARS, 2. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY M AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 3. SRI. BASAVARAJ M AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. SRI. HARIKRISHNA M. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS Digitally signed by 5. SRI. MALLESH MSHARADAVANI B AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, Location: High Court of Karnataka ALL ARE SONS OF LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA R/O. GOTTIGERE POST, VADDARAPALYA, 8TH PHASE, JP NAGAR, KOTHANURU VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 086 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE) - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019 HC-KAR AND: 1. SRI GANESH M S/O. LATE. MUNISWAMAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 1A. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE GANESH @ GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 1B. SMT. GEETHA G. D/O. LATE GANESH @ GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 1C. SMT. HEMALATHA D/O. LATE GANESH @ GANESHAPPA W/O. RAGHU @ DAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 1D. SMT. JYOTHI W/O. LINGARAJU D/O. LATE GANESH @ GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT SEEGEPALYA SOMPURA HOBLI, KAMBALU POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 12.06.2026 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, 2ND FLOOR, THIMMAIAH COMPLEX, - 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019 HC-KAR GANDHINAGAR, BEHIND TRIBUVAN TALKIES, BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.V., CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. B.P. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R1 (A TOD)) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPGUNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2018 ON I.A.NO.9 VIDE ANNX-F PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA (BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT), IN O.S.202/2011 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE W.P. AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2018 passed on I.A.No.9 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.202/2011 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Nelamangala - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019 HC-KAR (Bangalore Rural District) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.202/2011 against the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 6 seeking relief of declaration that the gift deed dated 13.12.2010 does not bind the plaintiff and for the consequential relief of injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1 to 6. They contested the proceedings. The Trial Court framed the issues, and the matter was posted for recording of evidence. At that stage, defendant Nos.1 to 6 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the written statement. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and which came to be rejected by the Trial Court solely on the ground that the proposed amendment is introducing evidence in the pleadings. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019 HC-KAR

4. It is required to be noticed that, in the proposed amendment, the defendants are contending that the plaintiff produced a fabricated genealogy tree, which has been marked as Ex.P8, and that defendant No.4 had filed a private complaint against the plaintiff, pursuant to which the police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet. In my considered view, though such a pleading may not be strictly necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, however, these are the facts which the defendants intend to bring on record before the Court and which have taken place subsequent to the marking of Ex.P8. By allowing the said application, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff nor change the scope of suit. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 20.12.2018 passed on I.A.No.9 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019 HC-KAR O.S.No.202/2011 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Nelamangala is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, I.A.No.9 filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 6 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. iv) The defendants shall file the amended written statement within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1