- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10701 WP No. 12851 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 12851 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M J ABHISHEK S/O. JAYASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. KIRLOSKAR EMPLOYEE, 8TH CROSS, BEHIND LIC, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARCHANA MURTHY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O. SHAMBULINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O. DODDI BEEDI, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. 2. SRI. JAYASHANKAR DEAD BY LRS SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O. JAYASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC. HOUSE WIFE, 8TH CROSS, BEHIND LIC, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. 3. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. CHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10701 WP No. 12851 of 2020 KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK - 571 428. 4. SRI. DEVE GOWDA S/O. SHAMUBULINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 8TH CROSS, BEHIND LIC, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. 5. LOKESH S/O. LATE SHAMUBULINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 8TH CROSS, BEHIND LIC, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. 6. NAGESH S/O. LATE SHAMUBULINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 8TH CROSS, BEHIND LIC, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. 7. RAJESH S/O. LATE SHAMUBULINGE GOWDA, 8TH CROSS, BEHIND LIC, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA M B.,ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7; R1, R2, R3, R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR DTD 19.03.2020 ON IA NO.1X IN OS NO.174/2013 VIDE ANNX-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10701 WP No. 12851 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is the plaintiff in a suit in O.S.No.174/2013, on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') is before this court being aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2020 passed on I.A.No.IX by the Trial Court allowing the application filed by defendant Nos.4 to 6/respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC permitting them to be impleaded in the said suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit schedule property was the subject matter of a gift deed dated 28.09.2004 that was executed by the defendant No.1 (Paternal grandmother of the plaintiff) in favour of the plaintiff, who was then a minor represented by his father. That subsequently, father of the plaintiff had clandestinely sold the said property by executing a deed of sale dated 02.06.2011 in favour of the defendant No.1, who in turn had executed other deed of gift dated 21.10.2011, conveying the very same property in favour of defendant No.3/respondent No.4. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein who have been impleaded as defendant Nos.4 and 6, are the sons of defendant No.1 and paternal uncles of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10701 WP No. 12851 of 2020 plaintiff/petitioner herein. It is further contended that defendant Nos.6 and 7 are the attesting witnesses to the deed of gift dated 28.09.2004 and 21.10.2011 respectively. It is thus contended that once they having participated in the process of execution of the deeds of gift, they cannot claim contrary to the same and the Trial Court not having appreciated the same, has impleaded them as a party to the suit. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit property is an ancestral property and the defendant No.1 having inherited through her husband, who is the father of defendant Nos.4 to 6/respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein, could not have executed the deed of gift in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. Since the petitioner/plaintiff is claiming his right under the said deed of gift dated 28.09.2004 has filed a suit for declaration of the suit property in respect of which the defendant Nos.4 to 6/respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein also have their right, share, title and interest, they are proper and necessary parties for the proper and effective adjudication of the lis and in order to avoid any multiplicity of the suit, he - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10701 WP No. 12851 of 2020 submits that their presence is necessary indispensable. Hence he seeks for dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard and perused the records. 5. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute, defendant No.1 is the mother of defendant Nos.3 to 6. Plaintiff herein is the son of defendant No.2 (grandson of the defendant No.1). Plaintiff is claiming right over the property in terms of deed of gift dated 28.09.2004, which is admittedly in respect of the ancestral property. defendant Nos.4 to 6/respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein are claiming their rights in respect of the said property having inherited the same through their father. 6. In view of the aforesaid factual actual aspect of the matter, this Court do not see any error, illegality in Trial Court holding that the presence of defendant Nos.4 to 6/respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein are necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter. No grounds are made out, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL