- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50061 WP No. 823 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 823 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PUTTASWAMY S/O LATE KYATHGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT SHIVALLI VILLAGE HUDDA HOBLI MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 405. 2. D. PRAKASH S/O LATE PATEL DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT KARASAVADI VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ROOPESHA B, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. N.M. RATHNA W/O M. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT MIG 64, GROUP-4 GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD K.H.B. COLONY, HOOTTAGALLI BELAVADI POST MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 018. 2. SRI SIDDEGOWDA S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS. 3. SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50061 WP No. 823 of 2023 4. SMT. NINGAMMA D/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 5. SRI. KEMPEGOWDA D/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 6. SMT. PUTTANINGAMMA W/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 7. SRI SHIVANNA S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 8. SMT. SAROJA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 9. JAYAMMA D/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 10. SRI. NINGEGOWDA S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 11. SMT. BORAMMA W/O NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 12. SRI NINGEGOWDA W/O NINGEGOWDA AND BORAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 13. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 14. SRI GANGADHAR W/O NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 15. SRI SHIALINGEGOWDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50061 WP No. 823 of 2023 S/O NINGEGOWDA AND BORAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 16. SMT. CHIKKAHONNAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 17. SMT. SARASWATHI W/O NINGEGOWDA AND BORAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 18. SMT. MANGALA D/O NINGEGOWDA AND BORAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 18 ARE R/AT GANNIGARAHUNDI VILLAGE MARATIKYATHANAHALLI POST YELWALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 027. SHIVAJOGEGOWDA S/O LATE PAGEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRs. 19. SMT. KAMALA W/O LATE SHIVAJOGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 20. SRI MANJU S/O LATE SHIVAJOGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 21. SRI VINU S S/O LATE SHIVAJOGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.19 TO 21 ARE R/AT MP/230/5 1ST STAGE, BELAVADI YELWALA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DILIP KUMAR L, ADV., FOR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50061 WP No. 823 of 2023 SRI SANGANATHA R.B, ADV., FOR R-1, NOTICE TO R-2, R-2 IS D/W V/O DTD 07.02.2023) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.513/2013 FROM THE FILE OF THE II ADDL SR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.01.2022 PASSED IN O.S.513/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL SR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM , MYSURU IN DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION/PETITIONERS, I.A.NO. 16 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 (2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE - G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 03.01.2022 passed on IA No.16 in OS No.513/2013 by the Court of II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent No.1 herein has filed OS No.513/2013 before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of declaration of her title in respect of suit schedule item Nos.1 and 2 properties and also to declare the Sale Deed registered on 24.02.2007 as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50061 WP No. 823 of 2023 illegal and not binding. A consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties is also sought in the plaint. Contesting defendants have entered appearance before the Trial Court and have filed separate written statements opposing the suit claim. IA No.16 was filed on behalf of the petitioners herein to implead them as party defendants to the suit. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the application filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the plaintiff, she has purchased suit schedule Item Nos.1 and 2 properties under Sale Deed dated 04.11.1992. Subsequently, she has formed layout in the said properties and under two separate Sale Deeds dated 11.05.1993, petitioners herein have purchased two sites from the plaintiff, which was formed by her in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, petitioners are necessary and proper parties to the suit. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the sites purchased by the petitioners have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50061 WP No. 823 of 2023 nothing to do with the suit schedule Item Nos.1 and 2 properties. The original owners of the property bearing Sy.No.85/2, after having sold the suit schedule Item Nos.1 and 2 properties in favour of the plaintiff, had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the remaining extent of land in the said survey number and thereafter, the plaintiff had developed the said land and had executed Sale Deed in favour of petitioners in respect of two sites formed on the strength of the GPA executed by the original owners of the property. Therefore, the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that plaintiff has sought for declaration of her title in respect of suit schedule Item Nos.1 and 2 properties which allegedly were purchased by her under two separate Sale Deeds dated 04.11.1992 and 05.07.1993. According to petitioners, after the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule Item No.1 property under Sale Deed dated 04.11.1992, she had developed the same and two sites formed in the said property were purchased - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50061 WP No. 823 of 2023 by them under two separate Sale Deeds dated 11.05.1993. However, learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that sites which were sold to the petitioners were not formed in the property purchased by the plaintiff under the registered Sale deed dated 04.11.1992 and on the other hand, the said sites were formed on the remaining property in Sy.No.85/2 on the strength of General Property of Attorney executed by the original owners of the property and sold to the petitioners. 7. Perusal of the copy of the Sale Deed dated 11.05.1993 under which petitioners herein have allegedly purchased the two sites from the plaintiff, which are formed in Sy.No.85/2 of Madagalli Village, Yelawala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, would go to show that the said Sale Deeds are executed by the plaintiff independently in her individual capacity and not as the GPA holder of the original owners of the property bearing Sy.No.85/2. In the Sale Deed dated 11.05.1993, it is not stated that plaintiff had executed the said Sale Deed on behalf of the original owners of the property bearing Sy.No.85/2. The Sale Deed in favour of the petitioners was executed on 11.05.1993 itself and the suit seeking declaration of title is filed in the year - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50061 WP No. 823 of 2023 2013. Since the rights of the petitioners is likely to be effected having regard to the prayer sought for in the suit, I am of the opinion that their presence in the suit is required for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. The Trial Court was therefore, not justified in rejecting IA No.16 filed on behalf of the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, presence of the petitioners in the suit becomes necessary. Accordingly, the following order:- 8. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.01.2022 passed on IA No.16 in OS No.513/2013 by the Court of II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, is set-aside. Consequently, the prayer made in the application is granted. 9. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application if any, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed off. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20