- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10415 WP No. 35097 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 35097 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI B K ANIL KUMAR S/O SHRI B M KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.99, BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 083. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G A VISWANATHA REDDY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M GANESH @ GANESHAPPA S/O LATE G MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O SRI M GANESH @ GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. SMT GEETHA D/O SRI M GANESH @ GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 4. SMT HEMALATHA D/O SRI M GANESH @ GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10415 WP No. 35097 of 2018 5. SMT JYOTHI D/O SRI M GANESH @ GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE R/A VADDARAPALYA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 083. 6. SRI SHIVASWAMY S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 7. SRI NARAYANA SWAMY S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 8. SRI MAHESH S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 9. SRI BASAVARAJU S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 10. SMT GOWRAMMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 11. SMT BHUDEVAMMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 12. SRI HARI S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 13. SMT VARALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10415 WP No. 35097 of 2018 14. SMT SARASWATHI D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 15. SMT AMBUJA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 15 R/A NO.31/8, 4TH CROSS IST MAIN, J P NAGAR 8TH PHASE, 2ND BLOCK GOTTIGERE POST BANGALORE-560 083. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NARAYANA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R15) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CH-10) IN O.S.NO.817/16 BY ALLOWING I.A.NO.4 VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10415 WP No. 35097 of 2018 ORAL ORDER Plaintiff/petitioner in O.S.No.817/2016 pending consideration by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short Trial Court) is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2018 allowing the application in I.A.No.4 filed by the respondent Nos.6 to 15 under order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC permitting them to be impleaded as defendant Nos. 6 to 15 in the suit. 2. The above suit in O.S.No.817/2016 has been filed by the plaintiff herein for the relief of specific performance of an agreement dated 05.11.2007 purported to have been executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in respect of the suit schedule property. The impleading applicants/the proposed defendant Nos.6 to 15 in their application in I.A.No.4 contended that the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are not having any share, right, title interest of the suit schedule property, inasmuch as, the suit schedule property belongs to their mother Smt.Lakshmamma wife of late Muniswamappa. That upon demise of said Lakshmamma the proposed defendants became entitled for the suit schedule property. It is also contended that portion of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10415 WP No. 35097 of 2018 land has already been acquired by Bangalore Development Authority and in the claim arising out of compensation to be paid, an MFA No. 7539 /2005 was filed before this Court, in which the entitlement of the applicants has been established and confirmed. As such, it is contended that the suit is filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and in order to avoid any multiplicity proceedings they are required to be impleaded in the said suit. Accepting the said contention the Trial Court has allowed the application. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is one for specific performance of an agreement. That as on the date of agreement the records of rights were standing in the names of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and since the proposed defendants are not the parties to the said agreement and their names were also not reflected in the RTC, there was no need or necessity for the proposed defendants to come on record as party defendants. That apart bringing them on record would change the nature and scope of the suit. Hence he submits the impugned order is required to be set aside. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10415 WP No. 35097 of 2018 4. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the proposed respondents 6 to 15 submits that Muniswamappa had two wives. The defendants 1 to 5 are the children of the first wife and the proposed defendants 6 to 15 are the children of second wife namely, Lakshmamma. That in the partition the suit schedule property has been allotted to Lakshmamma, as such the proposed defendants became entitled to the share in the said property. He submits portion of the property belongs to Lakshmamma was acquired and in the proceedings regarding payment of compensation, their entitlement has been upheld and confirmed by this Court in MFA No.7539/2005. He submits the suit is filed in collusion between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 only to deny the entitlement of the proposed defendants 6 to 15. Hence he submits the presence of these proposed defendants for effective adjudication of the matter is necessary. Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard. Perused the records. 6. Though suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner is one for specific performance of an agreement dated 05.11.2007 purported to have been entered into between the plaintiff and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10415 WP No. 35097 of 2018 defendants 1 to 5, the proposed defendants 6 to 15 contended that defendants 1 to 5 do not have any share, title, right interest in the suit schedule property and that the said property belonged to their mother Smt. Lakshmamma who had been allotted the said share in a Panchayat Parikath dated 24.04.1994. It appears defendants 1 to 5 had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.2064/2004 for relief of partition against the proposed defendants 6 to 15 and their mother and the said suit has been dismissed by the judgment decree dated 30.07.2007. It also appears the defendant No.1 has filed another suit in O.S.No.9534/2004 which also came to be dismissed on 10.12.2009. Thereafter another suit is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.16859/2006 against one Timmagangappa and others in respect the very same property for declaration and other relief. The said suit is still pending consideration. 7. From the records it is clear that the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 seem to be filing the suit after suit in respect of the very same property against persons including the proposed defendants herein. Further defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and defendant Nos. 6 to 15 are stated to be the children of one Muniswamappa from his first and second wife respectively. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10415 WP No. 35097 of 2018 Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the proposed defendant Nos. 6 to 15 are strangers. Since the very claim of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 to be the owners of the subject property upon which they seem to have entered into an agreement with the plaintiff is disputed by defendant Nos. 6 to 15 and their presence is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute and also to avoid any multiplicity of proceedings. It is appropriate that the impugned order that is passed by the Trial Court not be interfered with. 8. No merits warranting interference. Petition is dismissed accordingly confirming the impugned order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.817/2016 on I.A.No.4. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27