- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13845 WP No. 101691 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 101691 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI MAHADEVAPPA S/O GURUSHIDDAPPA AGALI, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT: MALATESH NILAYA, SWADHI BUILDING, CHAITANYA NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 028. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ZANZA JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI ARUN S/O VEERANNA MULAMUTTAL, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE, R/AT: H.NO.103/B, ASHIRWAD COMPLEX, KUBSAD GALLI, KAMDOLLI ONI, HUBBALLI-580 028. 2. SHRI VEERANNA S/O SHIVAPPA MULAMUTTAL, AGE. 80 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.18 07:57:04 +0100 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13845 WP No. 101691 of 2025 R/AT: H.NO.103/B, ASHIRWAD COMPLEX, KUBSAD GALLI, KAMDOLLI ONI, HUBBALLI-580 028. 3. SHRI KIRAN S/O VEERANNA MULAMUTTAL, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, R/AT: H.NO.103/B, ASHIRWAD COMPLEX, KUBSAD GALLI, KAMDOLLI ONI, HUBBALLI-580 028. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTHI P. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY SUCH WRIT OR DIRECTION TO SET- ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/02/2025 AS PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT: HUBBALLI ON I.A. NO.9 AS FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.3/PETITIONER IN O.S. NO.180/2023 I.E. ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAME, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13845 WP No. 101691 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Petition is filed assailing the order rejecting the application to frame additional issues. The defendant proposed following three issues: "1. Whether the defendant No.3 proves that the suit of plaintiff is to be dismissed on the grounds of non joinder of necessary party? 2. Whether the defendant No.3 proves the sale deed dated 14/02/2011 for plaintiffs legal necessity? 3. Whether suit for partition is maintainable without setting aside compromise decree in R.A No:285 of 2015 between Shankarsa and Vasudevsa Pattan and defendant No: 1 and 3, with respect to suit schedule property". 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that all three additional issues would arise as the defence is raised in the pleading which give rise to aforementioned three issues. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there is no defence which would give rise to aforementioned issues. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13845 WP No. 101691 of 2025 4. This Court has perused the written statement filed by defendant No.3. 5. It is noticed in paragraph No.30 that defendant No.3 has raised a contention that sale deed dated 14.02.2011 was executed for legal necessity. That being the position, the burden is on defendant No.3 - the purchaser, who claims that the property is sold for legal necessity and accordingly, proposed additional Issue No.2 does arise for consideration. 6. So far as proposed additional Issue No.1 is concerned, it is urged that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Who are the necessary parties are not specified in the written statement. 7. Proposed additional Issue No.3 is sought to be framed on the line that the suit for partition is not maintainable without a prayer for setting aside the decree in R.A.No.285/2015 between Shankarsa and Vasudevsa Pattan and defendants No.1 and 3 with respect to suit schedule property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13845 WP No. 101691 of 2025 8. There is no such defence in written statement to the effect that the suit is not maintainable without a prayer to set aside compromise decree in R.A.No.285/2015. It is also stated that the plaintiff is not a party to the said appeal. Plaintiff is not claiming under any of the parties to the said appeal. 9. Since there is no such defence in the written statement, proposed Additional Issues 1 and 3 would also not arise. Hence, Writ Petition is allowed in part. 10. The Trial Court shall frame proposed additional Issue No.2 and thereafter, proceed to hear all the issues on merits. 11. It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN-CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 66