IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NOS.46254-46255 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. Padmamma W/o Late K.M.Munivenkatareddy Aged about 48 years 2. P.M.Naveen Kumar S/o Late K.M.Munivenkatareddy Aged about 23 years Both are R/at Kondenahalli village Holur Hobli, Kolar Taluk ... Petitioners (By Sri Vishwanatha K, Advocate) AND:
1. V Rajamma W/o Late K.M.Munivenkatareddy Aged about 51 years 2. K.M.Gaganreddy S/o Late K.M.Munivenkatareddy Aged about 21 years 3. K.M.Nikhilreddy S/o Late K.M.Munivenkatareddy Aged about 16 years Minor reptd. By his mother And Natural Guardian i.e., respondent No.1 Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are R/at 4th Cross, Khadripura road Karanjikatte, Kolar Taluk And District – 563 101 4. The Railway Protection Force By Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Bengaluru City Railway Station Bengaluru – 560 009 …Respondents These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 227 of The Constitution Of India praying to set aside the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kolar on I.A. filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.229/2015 vide Annexure-A and consequently allow the above said application.
These Writ Petitions coming on for ‘preliminary hearing’ this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners have filed P & SC No.7/2014 later converted into O.S.No.229/2015, wherein the plaintiffs sought for grant of Succession Certificate, contending that they are the successors of K.M.Munivenkatareddy. In para 1 of the petition filed under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, it is specifically pleaded that deceased Late K.M.Munivenkatareddy having two wives by name Padmamma and V. Rajamma and P.M.Naveen Kumar is the son from the first wife Padmamma and K.M.Gaganreddy and K.M,Nikhil Reddy are the sons from second wife Rajamma and they are entitled for succession certificate. Now, by way of amendment application filed by the plaintiffs to delete paragraph No.1 of the plaint that, “deceased Late K.M.Munivenkatareddy having two wives by name Padmamma and V. Rajamma and P.M.Naveen Kumar, son from first petitioner and K.M.Gaganreddy and K.M,Nikhil Reddy, sons from first respondent” and in that place, he wanted to add “that Padmamma is legally wedded wife of deceased K.M.Munivenkatareddy and K.M.Naveen Kumar who is the second plaintiff is the son and others pleaded in para No.1 that they are not the wife and children of deceased Late K.M.Munivenkatareddy. Said application was opposed by the respondents.
2. The trial Court considering the application and objections, by the impugned order dated 11.08.2017, dismissed the application. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. Sri Vishwanatha K, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint is erroneous, contrary to the materials on record. He would further contend that, at any stage, the application for amendment can be allowed and therefore the trial Court ought to have allowed the application, the same has not been done. Hence, sought to quash the impugned order.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is not in dispute that, the very petitioners originally filed a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act in P & SC No.7/2014 and later converted into O.S.No.229/2015, in para 1 and 2 of the said petition it is clearly stated as under:
1. That the petitioners submit that the deceased Late K.M.Munivenkatareddy having two wives by name Padmamma and V. Rajamma and P.M.Naveen Kumar from first petitioner and K.M.Gaganreddy and K.M.Nikhil Reddy from first respondent.
2. That the petitioners further submits that the deceased late K.Munivenkatareddy was working under respondent No.4, as Head Police Constable in South West Railway, RPF, Bangarpet, coming under respondent No.4, the deceased K.Munivenkatareddy died on 20.03.2013 by leaving petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 3, as such the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to all terminal benefits like PF (PF No.04692986), Gratuity, Life Insurance and Family Pension etc., on account of the death of above said late K.Munivenkatareddy.
6. By way of amendment, the petitioners want to delete para 1 to the effect that Rajamma & K.M.Gaganreddy and K.M.Nikhilreddy are not the wife and children of deceased K.M.Munivenkatareddy.
7. Having admitted earlier that, K.M.Munivenkatareddy having two wives by name Padmamma and Rajamma and three children, now by way of amendment they want to delete the name of Rajamma, the wife and K.M.Gaganreddy and K.M.Nikhilreddy, their two children, which is impermissible under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court considering the application and objections, has recorded a specific finding at para 8 and 9 which reads as under:
8. On the strength of the facts pleaded in the plaint averments already the plaintiff has entered into trial and has lead in evidence as PW-1 and the plaintiffs in support of their case have examined three witnesses and all the witnesses have been cross-examined by the defendants’ counsel. Now, if proposed amendment to the plaint averments is looked into, it is found that the plaintiffs are intending to delete the para that deceased K.M.Munivenkatareddy was having two wives by name Padmamma and V.Rajamma and the petitioners are also intending to delete the fact pleaded that P.M.Naveen Kumar is the son of K.M.Munivenkatareddy through the 1st petitioner and the plaintiffs are intending to delete the fact that K.M.Gaganreddy and K.M.Nikhilgowda are the children of 1st respondent through K.M.Munivenkatareddy. On the contrary the plaintiffs are intending to plead that plaintiff No.1 Padmamma is the legally wedded wife of deceased K.M.Munivenkatareddy and with regard to the 1st respondent now the plaintiffs are intending to plead that she is not legally wedded wife of deceased K.M.Munivenkatareddy and the plaintiffs are intending to plead that both defendants No.2 and 3 are illegitimate children of 1st defendant and K.M.Munivenkatareddy.
9. If the proposed amendment to the plaint averments as well as the plaint averments are looked into, it is found that the plaintiffs are intending to change the entire nature of the plaint averments. Earlier the plaintiffs had pleaded that both plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are the wives of K.M.Munivenkatareddy and now the plaintiffs are intending to contend that the defendant No.1 is not the legally wedded wife. Already the plaintiff and her witnesses have been cross-examined by the defendants’ counsel as per the defence taken in the written statement and now if this proposed amendment which is very much contrary to the facts pleaded is entertained definitely it will change the nature of entire suit and it will take away the defence already placed on record by the defendants. Definitely the proposed amendment will prejudice the rights of the parties. As the proposed amendment is very much contrary to the facts pleaded and as the application has been filed at the stage of further cross-examination of DW-1 there are no reasons made out to entertain such an application and the plaintiffs herein cannot be permitted to amend the plaint as the proposed amendment will change the entire nature of the suit and for all the reasons stated above, the application filed by the plaintiff U/o 6 Rule 17 CPC is dismissed on cost of Rs.500/-.
8. The trial Court considering the pleadings and evidence on record has recorded a finding that the PW-1 and PW-2 and DW-1 have categorically stated that Rajamma is the wife and Gaganreddy and Nikhilreddy are the children of deceased K.M.Munivenkatareddy. Therefore, amendment cannot be allowed at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order came to be passed. The impugned order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application is in accordance with law.
9. The petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, Writ Petitions are dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE KMV*