- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10036 WP No. 6966 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6966 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VENKATAPPA S/O LATE EERAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 2. SMT. GEETHA W/O LAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.28/1 8TH CROSS, SUBEDHAR PALYA NH COLONY, YESHWANTHAPURA BENGALURU-560 022. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MANGALAMMA W/O MANJUNATHA SWMAY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT BYALAKERE KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 127. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 05.03.2025 AT ANNEXURE-H MADE Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10036 WP No. 6966 of 2025 BY THE LEARNED XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-42) ON THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 4 FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC, 1908 BY THE RESPONDENT IN OS NO. 3545/2020 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.3545/2000, whereby IA No.4/2024 filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 was allowed. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition against her mother and sister. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1/mother of the plaintiff died. The petitioner No.1 herein, who is the husband of defendant No.1 came on record as the legal representative. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the said application for inclusion of three more properties as the joint family properties. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10036 WP No. 6966 of 2025 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the properties mentioned in the applications are not joint family properties, they are the self-acquired properties. In the application Schedules ‘E’, ‘F’ and ‘G’ properties are the self-acquired properties of his wife deceased Smt.Lakshmamma and the self-acquired properties cannot be included in a suit for partition. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.S.LAKSHMAIAH AND ANOTHER vs. L.BALASURBAMANYAM AND ANOTHER reported in (2003) 10 SCC 310 and judgment of this Court in RFA No.683/2003 disposed of on 19.02.2013. 4. In this case, an application is filed for inclusion of the properties as the joint family properties. By inclusion of the properties as joint family properties will not automatically hold that it is the joint family property. Only the plaintiff has to prove and establish the same and the petitioners/defendants also can file objections and they - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10036 WP No. 6966 of 2025 can prove that they are the self-acquired properties. This issue can be decided only during the trial. Therefore, by allowing the application for inclusion of the property, at this stage, will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. That issue would be considered by the trial court. All the contentions of the parties before the trial court is kept open. 5. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 37