- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3950 WP No. 775 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 775 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI N SURESH, S/O LATE B NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 2. SMT. SHAKUNTALA N, W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 3. SRI SHASHIDHARA N, S/O LATE B NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 4. SRI SRIDHARA N, S/O LATE B NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 5. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, W/O LATE B NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT NO.70, 2ND CROSS, GOVT. SCHOOL ROAD, DODDAKALLASANDRA, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 062. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI G CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANK OFFICERS HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3950 WP No. 775 of 2025 NO.33, 1ST FLOOR, SIRUR PARK ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 020. REP. BY MANAGER (REG. UNDER THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959). 2. SRI UMESH KUMAR, S/O LATE SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS. 3. SRI JAGDISH KUMAR, S/O LATE SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. BOTH RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 ARE R/AT NO.65, SRI BEERESHWARA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN ROAD, DODDAKALLASANDRA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.R KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.4, IN OS NO.3646/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE TA BANGALORE (CCH-09) FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 (2) OF CPC, AND ALLOW THE IA NO.4 IN OS NO.3646/2020, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3950 WP No. 775 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the impleading applicants challenging the order dated 13.12.2024 passed in O.S.No.3646/2020 by the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the application filed by the petitioners is rejected. 2. Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration declaring that the gift deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is illegal on the ground that the land itself has been acquired by the plaintiff under the Land Acquisition Act and the acquisition has attained finality. 3. The impleading applicants claim that they are the legal heirs of Late Nanjappa and that the suit schedule property forms part of the ancestral joint family property and that they have also filed a separate suit for partition as regards the same property in O.S.No.1381/2018. The same is pending consideration. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3950 WP No. 775 of 2025 4. The trial Court after considering the contentions of both parties has given the following finding: "In the present case, the relief sought by the plaintiff is confined to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and pertains solely to the validity of the Gift Deed executed on 29.07.2010. The plaintiff's claim is rooted in the fact that the suit schedule property had already been acquired by the Government, and compensation was paid to the original owners and occupants. The plaintiff further asserts possession over the property pursuant to such acquisition. Thus, the dispute revolves around the ownership rights of the plaintiff vis-à-vis defendants nos. 1 and 2 concerning the Gift Deed and the legal implications thereof. The applicants, on the other hand, claim rights in the suit schedule property as members of the Joint Hindu Undivided Family. However, their claim of ownership or interest in the property is already under consideration in the partition suit filed by them. Merely because the plaintiffs in the present suit were impleaded as defendants in the partition suit does not automatically entitle the proposed defendants to be impleaded in the present proceedings. The issues raised by the applicants in their partition suit are distinct and independent of the dispute in the present suit. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3950 WP No. 775 of 2025 adjudication of the relief sought by the plaintiff herein does not necessitate the presence of the proposed defendants." 5. Therefore, it is very clear that the applicants / petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration declaring that the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void. Therefore, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the petition, I.A.1/2025 does not survive for consideration and the same is also dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE VP