- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7222 WP No. 22158 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22158 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE G.T. HEMANNA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS., 1. SMT. B.N. SUJATHA, W/O LATE SUBRAMANYA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. SMT. H.S. KUMUDA D/O LATE SUBRAMANYA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 3. SRI. H.S. VENKATESH, S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 4. SMT. S. LATHA D/O LATE SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.72, 2ND MAIN ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 003. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O H. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7222 WP No. 22158 of 2024 2. SRI. H. NARAYANA S/O LATE HOBBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 3. SRI. N. ESHWAR S/O H. NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 4. SMT. N. MANJULA D/O H. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 5. SMT. N. UMA D/O H. NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KOTHANUR, OPP. SABC, BAGALURU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560077. 6. SRI. THOMAS XAVIER S/O SRI. XAVIER MAJOR IN AGE R/AT NO.180, 2ND CROSS, NEHRU ROAD, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU, PINCODE - 560084 7. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O K. KALEGOWDA D/O LATE G.T. HEMANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.193, 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, SANEGURUVANA HALLI, BASAVESHWARNAGAR BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S NO.1094/2007 FROM THE FILE OF VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7222 WP No. 22158 of 2024 QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-G PASSED IN O.S NO.1094/2007 BY THE VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU ON I.A NO.7 AND TO DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The plaintiffs in O.S. No.1094/2007 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Bengaluru Rural District (henceforth referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) are before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 28.05.2024, by which an application (I.A. No.VII) filed by the respondent No.7 herein to be impleaded as plaintiff No.6 in the suit was allowed. 2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioners herein were the plaintiffs while the respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein were the defendants before the Trial Court. 3. The suit in O.S. No.1094/2007 was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7222 WP No. 22158 of 2024 suit schedule property and to direct the defendants to deliver up possession of the suit schedule property. They sought for declaration that the sale deed dated 28.07.2003 executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the defendant No.5 in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property is null and void and for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 4. The plaintiffs contended that the suit property belonged to Sri G.T Hemanna, the husband of the plaintiff No.1, father-in-law of the plaintiff No.2 and the grandfather of the plaintiff Nos.3 to 5. He purchased the suit schedule property in terms of a sale deed dated 27.11.1952. The plaintiffs claimed that the said Sri G.T. Hemanna died on 13.06.2000 leaving behind the plaintiffs, who succeeded to his estate. The plaintiffs therefore claimed that they had become the co- owners of the suit schedule property. They alleged that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 though having no manner of right, title or interest in the suit property had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property on 28.07.2003. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7222 WP No. 22158 of 2024 declaration that the sale deed dated 28.07.2003 is null and void and for declaration that they are the owners of the suit property and to direct the defendants to deliver up possession of the suit schedule property and for perpetual injunction. 5. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 on various grounds. 6(i). When the suit was listed for considering the applications filed by the plaintiffs to implead the purchasers pendente lite, the respondent No.7 filed an application (I.A. No.7) under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to be impleaded as plaintiff No.6 in the suit. She contended in the affidavit accompanying the application that she is the daughter of Sri G.T. Hemanna and after his death, she was entitled to an undivided share in the suit schedule property. She claimed that she was not aware of the pendency of the suit and soon after coming to know of the same, she filed the application to be impleaded as plaintiff No.6 in the suit. (ii). The plaintiff No.2 objected to this application contending that the application was filed at the instance of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7222 WP No. 22158 of 2024 defendant Nos.2 to 5. She alleged that the defendant Nos.2 to 5 with an intention to defeat the legitimate claim of the plaintiffs had colluded with respondent No.7 herein. She also claimed that the respondent No.7 herein had no legal right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. She also denied that respondent No.7 herein had a share in the suit schedule property and claimed that if she has a share in the suit schedule property, she is bound to approach the appropriate Forum and that her presence and participation in the suit is not necessary. 7. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 also filed objections to the said application contending that the respondent No.7 herein had not demonstrated any cogent reasons to permit her to come on record in the suit and alleged that the plaintiffs and respondent No.7 herein had colluded in filing the application (I.A No.7) to harass the defendants. 8. The Trial Court after considering the contentions urged by the respondent No.7 herein as well as the objections to the application, allowed the application in terms of the impugned order. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7222 WP No. 22158 of 2024 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that if the respondent No.7 herein has an undivided share in the suit schedule property, she has to work out her remedies in a separate suit and she cannot come on record in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. She also contends that there are several disputes between the plaintiffs and respondent No.7 herein which are pending before various Courts and that there is conflict of interest between the plaintiffs and respondent No.7 herein. Thus, she contends that respondent No.7 has no right to come on record. She also contends that late Sri G.T Hemanna had executed a Will bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore, the respondent No.7 herein had no subsisting right, title or interest in the suit property and hence, was not entitled to come on record. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the material on record. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7222 WP No. 22158 of 2024 12. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiffs claimed that they succeeded to the estate of Sri G.T. Hemanna. There was no mention of any Will executed by Sri G.T Hemanna. The plaintiffs did not dispute the fact that respondent No.7 was the daughter of Sri G.T. Hemanna. When the plaintiffs had filed the suit claiming title to the suit schedule property as the legal heirs of Sri G.T Hemanna, the respondent No.7 herein was also entitled to participate in the proceedings. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in allowing the respondent No.7 herein to come on record as plaintiff No.6 in the suit. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that permitting the respondent No.7 herein to be impleaded as plaintiff No.6 in the suit, may result in collusion between the respondent No.7 and the defendants can very well be taken care of by putting the plaintiff No.6/respondent No.7 herein on terms, namely, that she shall not raise any pleadings contrary to what is already urged by the plaintiffs in the suit and that she shall not lead any evidence that runs counter to the averments made in the plaint. She shall also not abandon the suit and consent/concede the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7222 WP No. 22158 of 2024 13. In that view of the matter, this writ petition does not merit any consideration. Consequently, the same is dismissed but is subject to the observations made hereinabove, Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40