- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24392 WP No. 10334 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 10334 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. DHANANJAYA R., S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.18, 1ST CROSS, NISARGA LAYOUT, SIDEDAHALLI, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 073. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ARAVIND BABU J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VENKATAPPA, S/O LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GOWDAIAHNAPALYA, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR - 572 140. 2. SRI. RAMAIAH, S/O LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GOWDAIAHNAPALYA, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR - 572 140. 3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE KARIYANNA, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24392 WP No. 10334 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF OPPOSITE TO SHANIMAHTMA TEMPLE ROAD, UPPARAHALLI, TUMKUR - 572 136. 4. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT OF OPPOSITE TO SHANIMAHTMA TEMPLE ROAD, UPPARAHALLI, TUMKUR - 572 136. 5. SRI YUVARAJU ALIAS GOWDA, W/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF OPPOSITE TO SHANIMAHTMA TEMPLE ROAD, UPPARAHALLI, TUMKUR - 572 136. 6. SMT. LAKSHMI, D/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF OPPOSITE TO SHANIMAHTMA TEMPLE ROAD, UPPARAHALLI, TUMKUR - 572 136. 7. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDENT OF OPPOSITE TO SHANIMAHTMA TEMPLE ROAD, UPPARAHALLI, TUMKUR - 572 136. 8. SMT. SHILPA, D/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24392 WP No. 10334 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF OPPOSITE TO SHANIMAHTMA TEMPLE ROAD, UPPARAHALLI, TUMKUR - 572 136. 9. SMT. SHILPA, D/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF OPPOSITE TO SHANIMAHTMA TEMPLE ROAD, UPPARAHALLI, TUMKUR - 572 136. 10. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, D/O LATE KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDENT OF OPPOSITE TO SHANIMAHTMA TEMPLE ROAD, UPPARAHALLI, TUMKUR - 572 136. 11. SMT. MANGALAMMA, D/O LATE KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF OPPOSITE TO SHANIMAHTMA TEMPLE ROAD, UPPARAHALLI, TUMKUR - 572 136. 12. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA, D/O LATE KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF OPPOSITE TO SHANIMAHTMA TEMPLE ROAD, UPPARAHALLI, TUMKUR - 572 136. 13. SRI. G.BHADRESH, S/O M.GANGAIAH, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24392 WP No. 10334 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT BIDANAGERE VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR - 572 130. 14. SRI. G.RUPESH, S/O M.GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT BIDANAGERE VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR - 572 130. 15. SRI. M.GANGAIAH, S/O LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT BIDANAGERE VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR - 572 130. 16. SRI. VENKATARAMANAIAH S/O LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT BIDANAGERE VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR - 572 130. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2025 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU IN FDP NO.4/2014 IN DISMISSING THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 22 RULE 4 AND 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24392 WP No. 10334 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 7.2.2025 passed in Final Decree Proceedings No.4/2014 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order XXII Rule 4 and 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Heard Aravind Babu J, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. 3. A suit is instituted by the plaintiff and the family members in O.S.No.95/1999. The suit is decreed in a particular manner as the suit was for partition and separate possession. Final Decree Proceedings are instituted in FDP No.4/2014. After about ten years of the institution of the Final Decree Proceedings, the petitioner files an application before the concerned Court that he is an adopted child of respondent No.1 one Mr.Gangaiah who was at the time of institution of Final - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24392 WP No. 10334 of 2025 Decree Proceedings, 70 years old. The impleadment of this petitioner is on the strength of a particular adoption that is said to have happened way back before the date of registration of the said Adoption Deed. At the time of registration of the Adoption Deed, the present petitioner was 28 years old. The date of adoption is not found, the age at the time of the petitioner being adopted by Mr.Gangaiah is not known and notwithstanding the aforesaid, the petitioner files an application before the concerned Court in a proceeding that was already 25 years old. The concerned Court rejects the application by the following order: "8. Point No.1: On perusal of the material on record it reveals that based on the preliminary decree passed in OS.95/1999 the petitioners have maintained the instant petition for drawing up of a final decree in the year 2014. Since then the court could not draw the final decree due to filing of frequent applications. That further when the case was set down for arguments of the petitioners on merits, this applicant has come up with the instant application, seeking permission to come on record as the legal representative of the respondent No.1. Whereas the said application has been registered by respondent No.1(a) and the petitioners alleging that the respondent No.1 has died without any issues. 9. That apart it is the contention of the applicant that he is adopted son of the respondent No.1(a) and the deed of adoption has been registered on 05.09.2017 though he was adopted at the age of his minority. Admittedly, there is no document or material to substantiate the fact that the applicant has been adopted - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24392 WP No. 10334 of 2025 by respondent No.1 at the age of his minority. Further the averments of the certified copy of the adoption deed also reveal that there was no document in respect of adoption as on the alleged day of adoption. The adoption deed produced along with the application is the document got registered subsequently after lapse of many years of the alleged adoption. That further the applicant has also not explained his inordinate delay in filing the application, though the respondent No.1(a) died on 19.01.2019. Moreover, the respondent No.1(a) has disputed the adoption. Further, the alleged 'Will' executed by Gangaiah does not disclose about the fact of adoption. Under the said circumstances, he cannot be permitted to come on record. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out the grounds to allow the application. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the negative. 10. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid findings, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER Application filed U/O 22 Rule 4 and 11 R/W 151 of CPC and Sec. 5 of Limitation Act is hereby dismissed. Office to index the record. For arguments of the petitioners by 15.02.2025. Sd/- 7/2/25 (G.DEEPA) Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru." 4 A perusal at the order does not indicate that the order of the concerned Court suffers from perversity or non- application of mind and it is strictly in consonance with law. A stranger is wanting to get himself impleaded into these - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24392 WP No. 10334 of 2025 proceedings on the strength of an adoption deed which could not have sprang from air in the year 2017 of a suit that was instituted in the year 1999 for partition and separate possession. The petition lacking in merit, stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT:SS