- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21956 W.P. No.4125/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.4125/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. B. VANAJAKSHI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O LATE SHAMALINGA NAIK NO.30, YELCHENAHALLI KANAKAPURA ROAD BANGALORE-560 078. 2. SMT. B. BHAGYA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O R. ANANDA NO.379, 1ST STAGE 5TH BLOCK, 5TH MAIN ROAD H B R LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 043. 3. SRI. B. PRAKASH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE P. BELURAPPA NO.3, 6TH A CROSS TALACAVERY LAYOUT AMRUTHAHALLI BYATARAYANAPURA BANGALORE-560 064. 4. SMT. B. SHAMALA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O NEELAKANTA NO.2, YELACHENAHALLI BEHIND PREMIUM PETROL BUNK KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 078. 5. SMT. SAROJA .B AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O R. VASANTHAKUMAR Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21956 W.P. No.4125/2019 NO.17/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD NEW GUDDAHALLI MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560 026. 6. SMT. NARASAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA. 7. SMT. S. SOWMYA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS W/O LOKESH. 8. SMT. S. RAMYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS W/O NARENDRA. 9. KUM. JYOTHI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA. NO.6 TO 9 ARE R/AT NO.377 5TH CROSS, CHENNAKESHAVA NILAYA SHABARI NAGAR, BYTARAYANAPURA BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 092 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRADEEP H.S. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O LATE JUNJAPPA. 2. SMT. KEMPAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS D/O LATE JUNJAPPA. 3. SMT. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS D/O LATE JUNJAPPA. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21956 W.P. No.4125/2019 4. SRI. KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE JUNJAPPA. 5. SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS D/O LATE JUNJAPPA. 6. SRI. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE JUNJAPPA. 7. SRI. M. MUNIPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPPA. 8. SRI. M. SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPPA. 9. SRI. M. MURALI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPPA. 10. SRI. M. MUKUNDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPPA. 11. SRI. M. MUNIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPPA. 12. SRI. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O SMT. KEMPAMMA. 13. SMT. SHOBHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D/O SMT. NAGAMMA. 14. SMT. SUNITHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS D/O NAGAMMA. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21956 W.P. No.4125/2019 15. SMT. ANITHA .K AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS D/O NAGAMMA. 16. SRI. SURESH K AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O KRISHNA. 17. SMT. LATHA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS D/O SRI. MANJUNATHA. 18. SMT. LIKHITHA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI. MANJUNATHA. 19. SMT. HEMA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS D/O SRI. KUMAR. RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 19 R/AT. YEDIYUR NAGASANDRA CIRCLE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 028. 20. SRI. AMJAD BASHA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE ABDUL RASOOL RESIDING AT NO.31, 1ST FLOOR SHANTHI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027. 21. SRI. MOHAMMED SHUAIB AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O MAZHER PASHA RESIDING AT NO.1 A STREET, COLES ROAD CROSS MUNESHWARA TEMPLE STREET BANGALORE-560 005. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21956 W.P. No.4125/2019 22. SRI. B. KESHAVA MURTHY [DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 10.03.2021]. 23. DR. PADMARAJAMMA D/O LATE PANDITH VENKATARAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. 24. SMT. RUKMINI DEVI D/O LATE PANDITH VENKATARAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 25. DR. VINAY NARAYAN PANDITH S/O LATE SRI. NARAYANA PANDITH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 23 TO 25 ARE RESIDING AT NO.1379 SHREEDURGA, 24TH MAIN 24TH CROSS BANASHANKARI II STAGE BENGALURU-560 078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VARUN P, ADV., FOR R23 V/O/DTD:06.03.2019, NOTICE TO R1 TO R21 IS D/W V/O/DTD:10.03.2021 R22 IS DELETED R24 & R25 ARE SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A, DATED 30.11.2018, PASSED IN O.S.NO.1674/2012 BY THE HON'BLE XXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE. THE SAME IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21956 W.P. No.4125/2019 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "1. To issue Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order Annexure-A, dated: 30-11-2018, passed in O.S.No.1647/2012 by the Hon'ble XXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The same is produced at Annexure-A. 2. To pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit considering the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of Justice." 2. Sri.Pradeep H.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties against respondent Nos.1 to 21. During the pendency of the said suit, respondent Nos.23 to 25 filed an application to implead themselves as defendants in the said suit and the said application came to be allowed by the trial Court without appreciating the fact that they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the said suit. It is submitted that the petitioners suit is for partition and separate possession against the family members and proposed defendants, if they have any right, they should - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21956 W.P. No.4125/2019 file a suit for declaration based on the alleged sale deeds and khatas and they cannot be arrayed as parties to the suit filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the property claimed by the proposed defendants is different and distinct from the property involved in the suit. Hence, these aspects have not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and proceeded to allow the application by impleading respondent Nos.23 to 25 in the suit. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order and dismiss the application. 3. Per contra, Sri.Varun P., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.23 supports the order of the trial Court and seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21956 W.P. No.4125/2019 5. The petitioners filed O.S.No.1647/2012 seeking relief of partition and separate possession of the share in a property claimed to be joint family property. The schedule shown in the plaint is land bearing Sy.No.30/3 situated at Yediyur - Nagasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now within the limits of BBMP, Thyagaraja Nagar, Bangalore, measuring 28 guntas attached with 5 guntas of kharab land with boundaries mentioned in the suit. During the pendency of the said suit, respondent Nos.23 to 25 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of the CPC seeking for impleadment. The affidavit accompanying the said application indicates that the suit is filed by the petitioners in collusion with other defendants to defeat the lawful ownership of respondent Nos.23 to 25. It is averred that respondent No.25's paternal grandfather Sri.Pandit Venkatramachar has purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1958 and 1962. In support of their contentions they have produced registered sale deeds dated 30.07.1958, 16.07.1962, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21956 W.P. No.4125/2019 29.03.1966 and 14.05.1962. They have also produced the khata standing in their name in respect of property at Sy.No.30/3 which is the suit schedule property. The proposed defendants also produced the certified copies of the judgment and decrees of the civil Court and up to Supreme Court referred at paragraph No.11. Considering these aspects, the trial Court has rightly come to conclusion that proposed defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property and they are the necessary parties to adjudicate the suit. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the trial Court under the impugned order calling for interference in the writ petition. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the considered view that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK /List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35