ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. 2. Both the matters are taken up together with consent of both the learned counsels, for disposal. 3. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. Both these petitions are preferred by the plaintiff before the Trial Court. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned order passed on I.A.No.7 and I.A.No.8, by virtue of a common order dated 23.04.2025. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants, seeking partition, separate possession and for other consequential reliefs, so far as it relates to the suit schedule properties. 5. When the matter was at the stage of recording of evidence of defendants, at that time, these two applications came to be filed by the plaintiff. I.A.No.7 is filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to implead the proposed defendant No.6, namely, Smt. Rahath S.K., W/o. Noorulla Khan, D/o. Syed Khadar. 6. I.A.No.8 came to be filed for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking to incorporate certain proposed amendments to the plaint and also seeking for additional reliefs in the prayer. 7. On consideration of these two applications, the Trial Court did not find favour with the plaintiff on both the applications and accordingly dismissed both the applications by virtue of the interim order. 8. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the Trial Court has committed a serious error, irregularity and illegality in not considering the relevant averments made in both the applications for impleading the proposed defendant No.6 and to carry out amendment to the plaint by virtue of the proposed amendment that is sought for in the application. 8.1. It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the impugned order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the applications deserve to be allowed. It is further contended that the Trial Court has failed to take note that the first defendant transferred the entire rights in favour of his daughter by disregarding the rights and shares of the plaintiff in respect of the properties which are the subject matter in the suit. That is also done during the pendency of the suit. It is further contended that the Trial Court has failed to take note that the first defendant transferred the entire rights in favour of his daughter by disregarding the rights and shares of the plaintiff in respect of the properties which are the subject matter in the suit. That is also done during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the application for impleading the proposed defendant No.6, who is the beneficiary of the 'D' schedule property by way of a Gift Deed from defendant No.1, which is admitted by the defendant No.1. It is also a fact that the electricity bill and other documents are standing in the name of the proposed defendant No.6 and that item No. 'D' property belongs to proposed defendant No.6 by way of a registered document and hence proposed defendant No.6 would be a proper and necessary party to the suit, as item No. 'D' is a property that is owned by proposed defendant No.6. Therefore, it would be proper and appropriate to implead proposed defendant No.6 as she claims to be the owner of item No. 'D' of the suit schedule property by virtue of a Gift Deed entered into by defendant No.1 in her favour, who is none other than his daughter. 9. In the other application filed for amendment (I.A.No.8), the plaintiff has sought for incorporation of certain amendments in view of the Gift Deed entered into in the name of the proposed defendant No.6 and in view of the Gift Deed made in favour of proposed defendant No.6 and inclusion of item No. 'D' in the suit schedule property, the share would proportionately change and the plaintiff would be entitled to higher share of 3/4 th instead of 1/4 th and that the same requires to be incorporated in the plaint along with certain pleadings and the prayer. 9.1. It is further contended that the Trial Court has failed to take note of these facts and that while incorporating these proposed amendments and the prayer to the suit property, there would not be change of the nature of the suit, neither will it create any new cause of action except for adducing further evidence on the suit property. 9.1. It is further contended that the Trial Court has failed to take note of these facts and that while incorporating these proposed amendments and the prayer to the suit property, there would not be change of the nature of the suit, neither will it create any new cause of action except for adducing further evidence on the suit property. However, the said dispute would finally get culminated by virtue of amendment of proposed defendant No.6 and also by incorporating the amendment to the plaint and the prayer in the suit. Therefore, the dismissal of these two applications by the Trial Court is bereft of merits and the Trial Court has not considered all these aspects which are pleaded in the affidavit and stated on oath by the plaintiff along with the applications, whereas the Trial Court has mechanically dismissed the applications, which is not sustainable in law. 10. Respondent Nos.2 and 3/defendant Nos.2 and 3 are statutory authorities. They have not objected to the applications filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court. Therefore, notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed. So also respondent Nos.4 and 5 have died during the pendency of the suit, leaving behind no legal heirs. Note is made just below the cause title. The same is accepted. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 vehemently objects to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He sustains the impugned order passed by the Trial Court by contending that the applications filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.7 and I.A.No.8 are not maintainable either in law or on facts and the proposed defendant No.6 is not a proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings and that the amendment so sought to be made would completely change the nature of the suit and also create a new cause of action and moreover, the said applications are filed at the fag end of the trial when the matter is listed for recording the defendants' evidence. 11.1. 11.1. It is also contended by the learned counsel for defendant No.1 that the item No. 'D' in the schedule property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 which he had purchased in the name of his wife who had subsequently transferred to the name of her daughter i.e. the proposed defendant No.6 and therefore, the khata is effected in the name of the proposed defendant No.6, so also the power supply is taken in her name from the BESCOM, which apparently proves that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property, at any point of time. 11.2. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 further contends that all these facts were within the knowledge of the plaintiff and only with an intention to protract the proceedings, plaintiff has filed the present two applications at the fag end of the trial. Therefore, it is not required for the proposed defendant No.6 to come on record so also to incorporate the amendments sought for by the plaintiff in the application and thus sought for dismissal of the petition. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for defendant No.1. The points that arise for consideration are, (i) Whether the proposed defendant No.6 is a proper and necessary party required to be impleaded as party to the suit? (ii) Whether the amendment that is sought for by the plaintiff requires to be allowed? 13. Both these points are answered in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff, as this Court intends to allow both the applications for the following reasons: 14. Admittedly, the suit is filed for partition and separate possession by the plaintiff against the defendants. Defendant No.1, though claims that the property at item No. 'D' was purchased in the name of his wife, admittedly, the same was transferred in the name of his daughter, i.e. the proposed defendant No.6 and thereafter the khata and all the documents and all the revenue and the power supply connection are in the name of the proposed defendant No.6, which is not in dispute. Therefore, admittedly, the property at item No. 'D' is presently in the name of proposed defendant No.6, which is the subject matter of the suit in item No. 'D' of the schedule, for which a relief is claimed by the plaintiff in the partition suit and for other consequential reliefs. Therefore, admittedly, the property at item No. 'D' is presently in the name of proposed defendant No.6, which is the subject matter of the suit in item No. 'D' of the schedule, for which a relief is claimed by the plaintiff in the partition suit and for other consequential reliefs. Therefore, when one of the suit property is mentioned as item No.'D' and the owner is not impleaded, it can be later on claimed by the said person i.e proposed defendant No.6 that she was not made a party, hence she would not be bound by the judgment and decree that would be passed subsequently. So also, when the property is included in the schedule, the owner of the property is required to be made a party as any decree that would be passed by the Court would affect such person, who is now the owner of item No. 'D' property. Therefore, the proposed defendant No.6, in my opinion, would be a proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings, as item No. 'D' of the suit schedule is owned by the proposed defendant No.6 by virtue of a registered Gift Deed executed by the defendant No.1 in her favour. Therefore, it would be proper and necessary that the proposed defendant No.6 is impleaded in the suit proceedings. 15. Coming to the aspect of the amendment sought to be incorporated in the plaint, it is seen that the proposed amendment which is sought by the plaintiff pertains to certain paragraphs to be included with regard to the subsequent gift and other alienations made by the defendant No.1 including item No. 'D' of the suit schedule property and consequently, the change of her share which is sought to be incorporated in the prayer of the plaint in view of the impleading and the averments made in the application for amendment, where the defendant No.1 does not dispute that item No.'D' property is now gifted by way of a registered document in favour of proposed defendant No.6, it would be necessary to carry out the amendment in the plaint, so also in the prayer. The defendants would be at liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff with regard to the prayers that is sought to be incorporated and so also to raise additional objections, statement with regard to such amendment that would be carried out. The defendants would be at liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff with regard to the prayers that is sought to be incorporated and so also to raise additional objections, statement with regard to such amendment that would be carried out. In my opinion, there would not be any change in the nature of the suit, the cause of action would not change much as this is the subsequent event that has happened after the filing of the suit, which the plaintiff was not aware. 16. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ Petitions are allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 23.04.2025 passed on I.A.No.7 and I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.2804/2010, by the XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, is hereby set aside; iii) Consequently, I.A.No.7 and I.A.No.8 are allowed. The proposed defendant No.6 is permitted to be impleaded in the suit before the Trial Court. The amendment is permitted to be carried out and the Trial Court shall proceed further in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, of course, by providing opportunity to the defendants to file statement and framing additional issues, if required and proceed further expeditiously. iv) The Trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter within an outer limit of eight months, in view of the fact that suit is of the year 2010; providing opportunity to all the parties concerned. v) Ordered accordingly.