SONNE GOWDA Vs. CHIKOLAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21-11-2014 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.1783/2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

(2.) Petitioner is defendant No. 4 and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are plaintiffs in O.S.No.1783/2006 filed for judgment and decree of partition and separate possession of half share in the schedule properties. Father of the petitioner who was the original defendant filed written statement contending that they have perfected their title by adverse possession and they are in exclusive possession of the property. Issues were framed and the plaintiffs lead their evidence. Plaintiffs were cross-examined by the defendants. At the stage of commencement of defendants' evidence, the defendant No. 1(c) filed I.A.No.7 under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC seeking to amend the written statement to include the averment in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.49, measuring 2 acres 36 guntas situated at Sadahalli village, Bas-settihalli Hobli, Siddlaghatta Taluk standing in the name of Sri.Hanumanthappa s/o.Sonnappa, Sri. Anjanappa s/o.Sonnappa, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 herein and Sri.Chikkanjinappa s/o. Sonnappa. Further, defendant No. 4 also sought to include the schedule to the written statement i.e. property bearing Sy.No.49 measuring 2 acres 36 guntas situated at Sadahalli village, Bassettihalli Hobli, Siddlaghatta Taluk which is also joint family property standing in the name plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs stating that the defendants are not diligent in prosecuting the case. The defendants did not raise this contention earlier i.e., during the lifetime of defendants' father who was the original defendant. Further it is stated that 4th defendant and other legal representatives of defendant No. 1 had filed additional written statement in the year 2010 and at the time of filing the additional written statement also they had not taken the contention of availability of joint family property which they now intend to include. It is further contended that the defendants cannot take inconsistent defense. The Trial Court, on consideration of rival contentions, by its order dated 21-11-2014 rejected I.A.No.7 filed for amendment of written statement which is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the writ papers.