- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:148 WP No. 50637 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 50637 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ASLAM PASHA, S/O LATE AMEER JAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SMT. MUBINA TAJ, W/O LATE ILYAS PASHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SRI. AJAS PASHA, W/O LATE AMEER JAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 4. SRI. FIROZ PASHA, W/O LATE AMEER JAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 5. SRI. AFROZ PASHA, W/O LATE AMEER JAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 6. SRI. MEHBOOB PASHA W/O LATE AMEER JAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT HOODI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:148 WP No. 50637 of 2018 BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H.M. RAMACHANDRA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE R. MUNISWAMY SETTY, 2. H.M. ADINARAYAN SETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE R. MUNISWAMY SETTY, 3. H.M. TYAGARAJA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE R. MUNISWAMY SETTY, ALL R/AT MUNISWAMY SETTY COLONY, NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE, HOODI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 048. 4. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE SRI. SHAMANNA REDDY, AGED MAJOR, 5. BABU REDDY, S/O LATE MUNIREDDY, AGE MAJOR, 6. SUNITHA, D/O LATE MUNIREDDY, AGE MAJOR, RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT HOODI VILLAGE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:148 WP No. 50637 of 2018 MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 048. 7. ANITHA, D/O LATE AMMAYAKKA @ SHARADA AGE MAJOR, 8. VANITHA, D/O LATE AMMAYAKKA @ SHARADA AGE MAJOR, 9. SAVITHA, D/O LATE AMMAYAKKA @ SHARADA AGE MAJOR, RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT HOODI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. P.B. AJITH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 25.07.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5 TO R9 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7.9.2018 PASSED IN I.A.NO. IV IN O.S.NO. 10081/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC., - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:148 WP No. 50637 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.Nos.4 & 5 in O.S.No.10081/2014 dated 07.09.2018 by the Court of the VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the petitioners are before this Court. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein had filed a suit seeking declaration that they are absolute owners of the suit schedule property and also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the property. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the children of Muniswamy Setty, who has purchased an extent of 4 acres and 3½ guntas of land in survey No.182/1 of Hoodi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk by way of registered sale deed dated - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:148 WP No. 50637 of 2018 05.05.1962 from Shaik Ameer Jaan and others. Earlier to Muniswamy Setty purchasing the property, one Shamana Reddy had purchased in the said survey number, 1 acre and 15 guntas through a sale deed dated 09.06.1960. Shamanna Reddy is also no more. He left behind his two sons namely Munireddy and Narayanaswamy and a daughter by name Ammayakka @ Sharada. Narayanaswamy is defendant No.1 in the suit and other son and daughter are no more and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of Munireddy and defendants Nos.4, 5 and 6 are the children of the daughter Ammayyakka @ Sharada. It is the specific case that when it comes to the revenue entries, there is a discrepancy where the properties of the plaintiffs are shown as properties of defendants and defendant name is reflected in respect of the extent of the properties purchased by the plaintiff and in this regard, they have also approached revenue authorities. The plaintiff had come before this Court seeking direction to the Deputy Commissioner to set aside the wrong entries and to make the entries as per the sale - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:148 WP No. 50637 of 2018 deed. When the Deputy Commissioner had restored the entries in the name of the petitioners in the revision petition, the same was questioned by the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 before this Court by filing W.P.Nos.17474- 17477 of 2011 and W.P.Nos.46428-46431 of 2011 which came to be disposed of by common order dated 30.09.2015, wherein this Court had observed that the interim order dated 27.04.2011 of the Deputy Commissioner allowing the petitions and directing the Special Tahsildar to effect entries in the Mutations register in the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 10 in respect of 1 acre 14 guntas in Sy.No.182/1A of Hoodi Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, shall be subject to result of the civil suit and in the interregnum, persons whose names are shown in the revenue records in respect of properties in question are directed not to alienate, change the nature of the land, put up construction or in any manner dispose of the properties. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the I.A. seeking to implead themselves as party defendants to the suit and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:148 WP No. 50637 of 2018 that came to be dismissed by way of impugned order, wherein the Court has observed that in the order that is passed by this Court no direction is given to get impleaded in the suit and the defendants cannot seek their impleadment in the suit on the guise of the said order. The Court also observed that the suit is filed for declaration and the proposed defendants cannot be said to be the proper and necessary parties in the suit. The plaintiffs have sought for correction in the extent of the suit schedule property as per their sale deed by way of declaration. The Court observes that according to the petitioners, they came to know about the entries in the year 2004-05. The Court further observes that the petitioners have not questioned the same even till now. The Court observes that the proposed defendants nowhere stated in their affidavits as to why they are to be impleaded and what relief they are seeking. Simply they state that they are proper and necessary parties and the Court felt that their presence is not required in the present - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:148 WP No. 50637 of 2018 suit and accordingly, dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved thereby, the proposed parties are before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when the Deputy Commissioner has effected mutation in his name and the same is questioned before this Court and this Court had stayed the said order till the dispute is decided by the Competent Civil Court. The Court has also given a further direction that the petitioner in whose name the mutation is effected shall not alienate the property. He submits that unless and until the petitioner is impleaded in the suit, it would cause lot of prejudice to the plaintiffs and all these aspects were not considered by the Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants is whether the revenue entries in favour of the defendants was based on the sale deeds or not. In that dispute, the presence of the petitioner is not - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:148 WP No. 50637 of 2018 necessary. It is stated that when the sale deeds are of the year 1960-62, those sale deeds were never questioned by the petitioners herein and he has not taken any steps to question the same and that too when it is his own case that he is aware of these entries right from the year 2004. His presence is not required in the present proceedings and the Court had rightly dismissed the petition. It is submitted that there is no positive direction from this Court and just because the Court has observed that the issues will be decided in the pending suit, it will not confer any right on the petitioner just like that to implead in the suit. It is submitted that neither he is a proper party nor a necessary party in the present suit and his rights cannot be adjudicated in the present suit and the Court has rightly dismissed the petition. 5. Having heard the counsel on either side, perused the material on record. 6. According to the plaintiffs and the defendants, they have purchased the property in the year 1960-62 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:148 WP No. 50637 of 2018 respectively. It is their case that there is discrepancy in the revenue entries and the petitioners herein came up with a separate plea taking a stand that the property is belongs to them. The Deputy Commissioner had restored the entries in favour of the petitioners herein by setting aside the order of the Tahsildar. When the defendants and plaintiffs approached this Court and this Court by order dated 30.09.2015, had relegated the parties to the Civil Court. The Court had also stayed the operation of the order passed by the revenue authorities which is in favour of the petitioners herein and also passed further order that he shall not alienate the property. In the teeth of this particular finding which is in favour of the respondents which is against the plaintiffs, it cannot be said that he is not a proper and necessary party to the suit. In the facts and circumstances of the case where the order of the Deputy Commissioner which is in favour of the petitioners has been stayed by this Court till the further orders to be passed in the suit which the parties have already instituted. In the considered opinion of this Court, the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:148 WP No. 50637 of 2018 petitioners herein are the proper and necessary parties to the suit. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER 1. The impugned order dated 07.09.2018 passed on I.A.Nos.4 & 5 in O.S.No.10081/2014 by the VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City is set- aside and consequently, I.A.No.4 is allowed. 2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. 3. With regard to any other aspects, it is open for both the parties to agitate before the trial Court. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT: BHK