- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38304 RFA No. 2239 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2239 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI V. GOPALAPPA S/O LATE DYAVANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT NO.604, 2ND ‘C’ CROSS, 6TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYANAGAR, BANASAWADI, BENGALURU-560043. …APPELLANT (BY SRI PRADEEPA T.G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI ADINARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHYAMALA RAJ W/O SRI U.R. RAVI RAJ, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.154, ‘SOUKHA’, 6TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003. 2. SRI NARENDRA S/O ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, 3. SRI ASHWATHAPPA S/O DYAVANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38304 RFA No. 2239 of 2024 THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3 ARE R/AT KODIGEHALLI, NEAR KOTE MUTTURAYASWAMY TEMPLE, SAHAKARANAGARA POST, BANGALORE-560092. 4. SRI K. RAJANNA FATHER NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, 5. SMT. ANUSUYA W/O K. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, THE RESPONDENT NOS.4 & 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.4/A, BEHIND AKSYAHA SCHOOL, NAGASHETTY HALLI, SANJAY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAYAPRAKASH R.V., ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4497/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38304 RFA No. 2239 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT The matter is listed for orders, with the consent of both the parties taken up for final disposal. 2. The present Regular First Appeal is preferred by the impleading applicant (proposed defendant No.5) assailing the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2024 passed in O.S.No.4497/2019 on the file of the Court of the XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-31) (‘trial Court’ for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff’s suit and restrained the defendants therein from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The plaintiff’s suit was one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession. The appellant had filed I.A.No.3 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38304 RFA No. 2239 of 2024 in the original suit seeking to implead himself as proposed defendant No.5, when the matter was posted for judgment, the said application came to be rejected by the trial Court dated 20.06.2024. 5. The trial Court rejected the impleading application on the ground that it is the plaintiff’s prerogative to decide whom to implead, and further held that the applicant was neither a necessary nor a proper party. Aggrieved by the rejection, the appellant herein preferred W.P.No.19033/2024. 6. This Court dismissed the writ petition and in paragraph No.7 observed as under: “7. Admittedly, respondent No.1 has purchased the site No.613 in Survey No.6/1A of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Whether the vendors of respondent No.1 had a title to the property or not is the matter to be decided before the appropriate forum. The only question that needs to be considered herein is whether given the nature of suit when respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38304 RFA No. 2239 of 2024 No.1/plaintiff does not make the petitioner herein a party to the proceedings, can respondent No.1 become a just and necessary party. Admittedly, the allegation made in the Original Suit is that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and is in peaceful possession of the same and defendants therein tried to illegally interfere with her peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. She is required to establish her title to the property as against the defendants and has to show that they tried to illegally interfere with her peaceful possession. The right being decided in the Original Suit is a right in personam and not a right in rem. Any decree that is to be passed in Original Suit, if at all, passed in favour of the plaintiff therein, can be enforced as against the defendants therein and not the petitioner herein. It is always open for the petitioner to contend that the property concerned belongs to her not to the petitioner by filing the appropriate suit.” 7. The appellant, having lost his right to be impleaded, has now preferred this appeal challenging in favour of the plaintiff. However, he has no locus standi to challenge the judgment and decree when his impleading application was rejected under Order 1 Rule 10 of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38304 RFA No. 2239 of 2024 Code of Civil Procedure, and such rejection has been confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.19033/2024. 8. In these circumstances, the appellant has not made out any ground to sustain this appeal and hence this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular First Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 22.07.2024 passed in O.S.No.4497/2019 on the file of Court of the XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City is confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32