- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.55849 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.A.M. BASAVARAJU S/O. LATE. MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, AJJAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVAIAH C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT. ANKAMMA W/O. LATE. MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS HOUSE WIFE. 2 . SRI. JAYARAMU S/O. LATE. MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. 3 . SRI. A M VISHAKANTA S/O. LATE. MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST. - 2 - 4 . SMT. SULOCHANA W/O. CHANNANKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS HOUSE WIFE, NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF AJJAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571 428. 5 . SRI. A M SHIVAMADHU W/O. LATE. MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. CONTRACTOR, 6 . SMT. PRABHAVATHI W/O. A M SHIVAMADHU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS HOUSE WIFE, NO.5 & 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF 4TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, NEAR ST. ABBE’S CONVENT, K.H NAGAR, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT 571428 7 . SRI. MUDDE GOWDA S/O. CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O. KUDARAGUNDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571428 8 . SMT. K M ASWINI W/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11TH CROSS, LEELAVATHI EXTENSION, - 3 - MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT 571428 9 . SRI. SHIVAPRASADMADA S/O. S YADUNATHMADA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT D.NO. 1543/B, MATHASRI, 12TH CROSS, ANIKETHANA ROAD, C & D BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGAR, CHAMARAJAMOHAL, MYSURU CITY-570023. 10 . SRI. AJITHKINI S/O. LATE. VASUDEVA KINI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF AJTH ENTERPRISES, NO.273, D & E, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSURU-570016. 11 . SRI ERAJU S/O. EREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O. CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MADYA DISTRICT 571428. PROPOSED DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS NO.12 AND 13 TO THE PETITION 12. SMT. JAYARATHNAMMA W/O NARASIMHAIAH, HOUSE WIFE. 13. SRI SATISHKUMAR N S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS - 4 - RESPONDENTS NO.12 AND 13 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHOWDESWARIHALLI KOOTAKAL HOBLI RAMANAGARA TQ & DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-6; SRI VYAYATHIRTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-10; R-1 TO R-4, R-7 TO R-9, R-11 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; AGAINST R-12 AND R-13 PETITION STANDS DISMISSED V/O DTD:15.10.2024) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON APPLICATION IN I.A.NOS.23 & 24 DATED 24.09.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-J FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ORDER 1 RULE 10 (2) R/W SECTION 151 0F CPC RESPECTIVELY AS PER ANENXURE-F & G PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT MADDUR IN O.S.NO.35/2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATIONS FILED IN THE I.A.'S 23 & 24 AS PER ANNEXURE-F & G. AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 24.09.2018 on I.A. Nos. 23 and 24 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with section 151 of CPC respectively in O.S.No.35/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Maddur. 2. The Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff before the Court below and Respondent No. 1 to 11 herein, are the Defendants no.1 to 11 respectively before the court below. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein filed the original suit before the Maddur Senior Division, Civil Judge Court in O.S.No. 35/2012 praying for partition and separate possession of 7/36th share in all the suit schedule property by meets and bounds and consequently, praying for declaration, declaring that the sale deed executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the 7th respondent and 7th - 6 - respondent in favour of 8th respondent in respect of the suit schedule item property no.23 does not bind the right, title and interest and possession of the plaintiff in any manner. All the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties and in all the properties, petitioner having the absolute right has taken all the legal precautionary measures to claim his share from the kartha and the manager of his family from A.M Shivamadhu, i.e., 5th respondent, who looks after the family affairs after their father’s death in the year 1977. Item no.23 of the suit schedule property was sold to defendant no.7 on 12.10.2009 without the knowledge of the other legal successors and subsequently it has been registered Gift Deed in favour of the 8th defendant on 15.02.2010. In the light of these events, the plaintiff and the other legal successors have demanded to get partitioned in all the properties by convening the Panchayath on so many occasions. However, the - 7 - Respondent no. 5 refused to do and having no option left, the plaintiff has filed the suit. On filing of the suit, the defendants no.3, 5 and 6 have filed the written statements denying the averments of the suit. The defendants no.3, 5 and 6 have also filed written statement in support of the plaint of the petitioner and sought to pass judgment and decree as prayed for by plaintiff in the plaint. As the matter stood thus, 5th respondent have filed amendment applications and accordingly those amendment applications have been allowed and permitted to file amended written statements. Subsequently, 5th and 6th defendants have filed further amended written statement by denying the allegations of the plaintiff. The Petitioner came to know that proposed schedule A properties in Item No.25 and 26 were purchased by the 5th respondent and out of the joint family income and fund and the same has been transferred to his son-in-law and further item no.26 has been transferred and created sale - 8 - deeds in favour of his relative and also lent Rs.3,00,000/- as a loan to one Puttaramegowda. These three items of property have been purchased by the 5th respondent out of the joint family income and fund and created illegal documents in favour of proposed defendants. Thus, to implead proposed defendants as defendants no.12 and 13, applications under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with section 151 of CPC applications have been filed. The trial Court after hearing both the sides, dismissed the applications I.A.Nos.23 and 24 by an order dated 24.09.2018. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petitions have been filed. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Heard counsels for Respondents No.5, 6 and 10. Respondents 1 to 4, Respondents 7 to 9 and Respondent No.11 are served and unrepresented. 5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court without considering the - 9 - documentary evidences filed in support of the applications, dismissed the applications thereby causing irreparable loss to the petitioners. 6. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defendant has created and concocted the documents in favour of the proposed defendant nos.12 and 13 in the original suit and the Trial Court has failed to consider the same and the dismissed the applications. It was also contended that the trial court without assigning any reasonable ground to reject, rejected the application with costs, and Trial without considering the documents and materials placed on record, dismissed the applications. 7. It can be observed from the orders on I.A.No.23 that plaintiff himself got examined as the PW.1 and when the case was posted for cross examination of PW.1, the application under Order VI Rule 17 was filed. 8. It can be further observed that, no prima facie evidence/materials were placed on record to show that the - 10 - properties which are shown in proposed amendment are the joint family properties and they have been purchased by the defendant no.5 being the manager of the joint family. 9. It can be clearly seen from the Order that Trial Court found that the plaintiff intended to add parties whose names are mentioned in the aforesaid sale deeds and there were no materials placed on record and thus ultimately concluded that there were no grounds to allow the application and rejected the application. 10. It can be observed from the orders on I.A.No. 24, I.A. for impleading the defendants, the trial court has come to a finding that proposed defendant by name Smt. Jayaratnamma is said to be the mother of the son-in- law of defendant No.5 who is said to have purchased a site situated nearby dwelling house of the defendant No.5. Trial Court also found that the document produced by the plaintiff in the matter does not reveal any fact contended by the plaintiff. - 11 - 11. Further, the trial Court found that, from the copy of alleged sale deed, there are no recitals that the defendant no.5 has invested the amount in purchasing the said properties and all the contentions raised by the plaintiff in order to implead is only based upon the ground that the above said transactions are the Benami transactions. 12. The trial Court by emphasizing on who is a necessary party to the suit concluded that there are no reasons as to why the proposed defendants are to be impleaded as defendants and ultimately rejected the application filed by the plaintiff. 13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for both parties, on perusal of the material on record and on perusing the impugned order dated 24.09.2018 on I.A. No. 23 and 24 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and Order I Rule 10(2) read with section 151 of CPC respectively in O.S. No.35/2012 - 12 - on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Maddur, there are no merits to interfere in this petition. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV