1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.24658 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MANIPAL HIGH SCHOOL TRUST, VIDYANAGAR, MANIPAL, REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE MR. K. PRAKASH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O. LATE. K. NARAYANA SHETTY, ’RAMANI’, SARALABETTU POST, MANIPAL, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT – 576 101. PETITIONER NOT CLAIMED SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DR. SHEELA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, D/O. LATE T. RAMESH U PAI AND LATE. SHANTHI R PAI, RESIDENT OF “MADHAVA”, 99, ANANTHANAGAR II STAGE, MANIPAL – 576 104. MRS. T. SHOBHA PAI (SINCE DECEASED) D/O. LATE. T. RAMESH U PAI AND LATE. SHANTHI R PAI, 5, “CHITRAKALA”, ANANTHNAGAR, MANIPAL – 576 104, PRESENTLY AT 6548 LUCERNE CT REDDING CA 96001 – 5052, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 2. DR. K ARAVIND PAI, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, HUSBAND OF LATE. SHOBHA PAI 3. K. VIVEK PAI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE SHOBHA PAI, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 6548, LUCERNE CT REDDING C.A. – 6001 – 5052. 4. MR. T. SUDHAKAR PAI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE T. RAMESH U PAI AND LATE SHANTHI R PAI, 5, ’CHITRAKALA’ ANANTHANAGAR, MANIPAL – 576 104. 5. MR. SHANTHARAM PAI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE T. RAMESH U PAI AND LATE SHANTHI R. PAI, 5, ’CHITRAKALA’ ANANTHANAGAR MANIPAL – 576 104. PRESENTLY AT 1533, SERPENTINE DRIVE REDLANDS CA 92373 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6. M/S. CANARA LAND INVESTMENTS LTD., TILE FACTORY ROAD MANIPAL UDUPI TALUK – 576 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND GPA HOLDER H. GURUDAS SHENOY REG. UNDER COMPANY ACT, 1956 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITHYA NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 – SERVED AND UNREPTD, NOTICE TO R2, R3, R5 AND R6 IS O/W V/O DTD. 11.11.24) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER 3 DATED 14.11.2022 PASSED BY THE ADD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, UDUPI IN OS.NO.26/2015 ON I.A.NO.XIII MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 14.11.2022 passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Udupi in O.S.No.26/2015 on I.A.No.XIII (Annexure-A). 2. The petitioner herein is the proposed Defendant No.5 and the Respondents No.1 to 5 are plaintiff, defendant Nos.1(a) and (b) and defendants 2 to 4 respectively, before the trial Court. The Brief Facts of the case are as follows: 3. The plaintiff-Dr.Sheela filed a suit before the trial court for probation and succession certificate against the Respondents No. 2 to 5 under Part 10 of Indian Succession Act in favour of the plaintiff in respect of shares mentioned in the schedule. 4 4. Plaintiff is the daughter of Late T.Ramesh U Pai and Late Shanthi R Pai. The 2nd Defendant is the sister of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 are the brothers. The Plaintiff and the defendants are the children and legal heirs of Late T Ramesh U Pai and Late Shanthi R Pai. 5. Defendants are children and legal heirs of Mr.T,Ramesh Pai. Trust purchased huge shares in his name and during the purchase of shares for the trust, T.Ramesh Pai was the trustee of the Manipal High School Trust, Vidyanagara, Manipal. 6. During the course of the adjudication of the matter after framing the issues towards the suit schedule property and execution of Will dated 20.02.1995 bequeathed by T Ramesh Pai, the petitioner herein, having passed necessary resolution in the Board of Trust meeting held on 08.10.2022, filed an application dated 20.10.2022, to be impleaded as the defendant No.5 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 94(e) and 151 of CPC. 7. The trial after hearing both the sides, dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed the current writ petition. 5 8. Heard Counsel for petitioner and Respondent No.1. Other respondents though served, remained unrepresented. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trial Court without applying mind independently and without giving any findings dismissed the application. 10. It was also contended that the petitioner is a registered trust under Indian Trust Act and purchased huge shares in his name and at the time of purchase, T Ramesh Pai was the trustee, who is the ancestor of the defendants and the same shares are included in the plaint schedule and therefore, petitioner is necessary party for the effective adjudication of dispute. 11. It was further contended that addition of parties under Rule 10 of CPC is one of the judicial description which has to be exercised in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. This being a peculiar case, the trial court ought to have allowed the impleading application. It was also contended that the necessary party is one in whose absence the court cannot pass an effective decree and here in the suit, where the authority for whose benefit, the acquisition is proposed cannot be said to have direct legal interest and therefore, the trial Court ought to have 6 provided opportunity to the proposed applicant to present his case. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the dispute between the parties in respect of the assets belonging to the parents of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 3 and same is pending for adjudication of shares in the suit schedule properties under the Rules of intestate succession or whether the Will propounded by defendant No.2 is valid and the assets of the parents of the aforesaid parties to the suit must devolve on the basis of the said Will. In the above said suit, the trial has commenced and it is at the stage of cross examination of PW.1. 13. The counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that at this stage, the petitioner herein has filed an application for impleadment by the petitioner, claiming that certain shares comprised in the suit schedule B-Property are owned by the Trust and also admits and acknowledges that the said shares, however, stand in the name of T.Ramesh U.Pai and has set up an altogether new case that the said shares belong to it and that it is entitled to have the shares transferred into its name. 7 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further contended that the petitioner is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3. Hence, petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to this case. Hence, while considering all the contentions raised by the respondent No.1 and based on the material on record, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 15. Perused the entire material on record and on hearing the submission of counsel for both petitioner as well as Respondent No.1, it is observed that the application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, Section 94(e) and 151 of CPC is filed by the petitioner/proposed defendant No.5 as the contentions raised by the proposed defendant No.5 that shares which are owned by the Manipal High School Trust, Vijayanagar, in the name of T.Ramesh U.Pai, but those shares are also included in the suit and the contentions raised by the defnednat No.3 that how the movable and immovable properties in the name of T.Ramesh U.Pai was bequeathed, it is in the name of Trust Foundation, Manipal. Plaintiff and defendants are contesting the suit on the basis of the Will to be executed by T.Ramesh U.Pai, also their mother Shanthi R.Pai. In view of the above contentions, it appears that definitely 8 there will be a deviation if proposed defendant No.5 is impleaded in the suit. In this context, the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 relied upon a Judgment in Gajanana vs. Digambar and another reported in 2020 SCC Online Kar 5485 wherein it is held that the presence of the petitioner is not at all necessary for effective adjudication of the inter se dispute between the family members. The object of the Order I Rule 10 of CPC is not to change the scope or character of the suit by adding new parties and to enable them to litigate their own independent claim. In view of that there was no impediment for the petitioner work out his remedies by filing an independent suit. 16. In view of the same, we do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the Order passed by the Court below and there are no merits to interfere. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV Ct-VS