RAJAMMA Vs. SHASHIKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging order dtd. 2/1/2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Maddur on I.A.no.X filed under Order VI rule 17 of CPC, in O.S.no.34/2015 at Annexure-E, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) Sri. Manjunath M Hegde, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners were plaintiffs in O.S.no.34/2015 filed for declaration, partition and permanent injunction etc., in respect of suit schedule properties. In said suit after defendants entered appearance and filed written statement and before matter went into trial plaintiffs filed I.A.no.X for amendment of plaint under Order VI rule 17 of CPC for addition of pleadings, prayer and properties to schedule.

(3.) In affidavit filed in support of application, it was stated that plaintiffs were daughters of propositus Ningegowda. It was submitted that plaintiffs and defendants no.1 were daughters of propositus Ningegowda, who also had sons namely Naganna and Vishakantegowda, through first wife and that propositus had second wife namely Laxmamma, through whom he had two children viz., defendants no.7 and 8. It was further submitted that suit was filed on premise that there was partition by way of palupatti between plaintiffs, sons and propositus on 4/8/1985 and plaintiffs were in possession of properties in terms of same. However, upon knowing that khata in respect of suit properties were got mutated in favour of defendants, plaintiffs convened panchayat, and being unsuccessful filed suit. It was submitted that in written statement defendants had relied upon registered partition deed executed on 21/8/1985 and claimed that properties were divided and in terms thereon, records were mutated in favour of defendants. Thereafter plaintiffs obtained certified copy of alleged partition deed and thereafter realised that certain properties, which had fallen to share of their father Ningegowda were not included in suit schedule. Therefore filed application to include said properties as 'B' schedule property.