- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26070 WP No. 49688 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 49688 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT K A LEELAVATHI W/O LATE KEETHIYANDA AIYYAPPA D/O LATE K B NANJUNDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/A NO.829, 4TH CROSS SHIVAJI RAOD, N R MOHALLA MARATA BLOCK, MYSURU-570007 NOW RESIDING WITH HER SON #72, 8TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, NANDANAM COLONY, HORAMOUR MAIN ROAD, KALYANA NAGARA POST BENGALURU-43 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(a) SRI K N BIDDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT SACHI BIDDAPPA W/O LATE K N BIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 1(b) SRI K B KUTTAPPA S/O LATE K N BIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 1(c) SRI K B DEVAIAH S/O LATE K N BIDDAPPA Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26070 WP No. 49688 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R-1(a) TO 1(c) ARE R/A KANNANGERI VILLAGE MAKKANDURU POST, MADIKERI TALUK MADIKERI. 2. SMT R SEETA LAKSHMI W/O T V SUBBARAMAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 3. SMT SANGAMITRA STAUB W/O WALTER STAUB AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. SMT P RAMYA, W/O SAHAVAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025 ON MEMO DATED 15.07.2025. 5. SMT R PADMA, W/O S V RAJAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 6. SMT A LEELAVATHI, W/O ARUNACHALAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R-2 TO 6 ARE RESIDING IN MAKKANDUR VILLAGE AND POST MADIKERI. 7. K V SUBBAIAH, S/O UTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A NO.406, WINGS 16/B, CAIMBRIDGE ROAD BENGALURU-08 8. SRI KRISHNA SUBRAMANIAN S/O K KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/A NO.2, GROUND FLOOR BENGALURU-38 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025 ON MEMO DATED 15.07.2025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26070 WP No. 49688 of 2019 9. DR S KARTHIKEYAN S/O R V SUBBARAMAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO.5, THANGADU REDDY STREET TAMIL NADU-602002. 10. R V SUBBA RAMAN S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDIAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A NO.4/336, M LAKSHMI PURAM M REDDIA PATHI POST V NAGAR, TAMIL NADU-626118. 11. S MURUGESHAN S/O R V SUBBARAMAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A 41336, M LAKSHMIPURAM M REDDIA PATHI POST TAMIL NADU-626118 12. S SARAVANAN S/O R V SUBBARAMAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A PRIYAS, KAVERI LAYOUT MADIKERI-571201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.BHASKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-1(a TO c), R-7, R-9, R-10, R-11, R-12 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED:16.06.2025 R-2, R-5 AND R-6 ARE DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED:15.07.2025 R-4 AND R-8 ARE DELETED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MADIKERI IN O.S.NO.71/2009 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.20 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC (ANNEXURE-E) BY THE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26070 WP No. 49688 of 2019 PETITIONER IN O.S.71/2009 SEEKING TO IMPLEAD R-7 TO 12, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MADIKERI, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.08.2019 passed on I.A.No.20 filed by the petitioner- plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC) in O.S.No.71/2009 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madikere. 2. Sri.K.Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the suit for partition and separate possession against the respondents. In the said suit, the family members have been arrayed as parties and thereafter, defendant Nos.2 to 6 have been impleaded as parties on the ground that they are the subsequent purchasers. It is further submitted that the objection filed by the defendants indicate that there was further alienation. Hence, an application is filed to implead defendant Nos.7 to 12 in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26070 WP No. 49688 of 2019 suit. However, the trial Court rejected the said application under the impugned order mainly on the ground that 'doctrine of lis pendens' applies, as the alienations are during the pendency of the said suit. It is submitted that if the proposed defendants are brought on record, it would be end of controversy between the parties as their interest with regard to the immovable properties also will be adjudicated in the suit. It is also submitted that the issue with regard to the purchase of properties by the defendants during the pendency of the suit or not, is also to be decided in the pending suit. Hence, the proposed defendants are proper and necessary parties to adjudicate the dispute. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 3. Per contra, Sri.K.S.Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court taking note of the law on the point has rightly come to the conclusion that if any alienation has taken place during the pendency of the suit to the subject property, 'doctrine of lis pendens' applies. Hence, the proposed defendants are not necessary or proper parties - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26070 WP No. 49688 of 2019 for the adjudication of the suit. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the materials available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 5. The petitioner filed O.S.No.71/2009 which is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madikere. The said suit is for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. Initially, suit was filed against the family members, later an application for amendment was filed, which came to be allowed by adding defendant Nos.2 to 6 as parties to the suit. Some of the defendants have filed objections indicating that some of their properties have been further alienated in favour of defendant Nos.7 to 12. Hence, considering such objection, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking to implead the subsequent purchasers. An affidavit accompanying the said application indicate that in a fraudulent manner to defeat the rights of the petitioner- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26070 WP No. 49688 of 2019 plaintiff, a transaction has been taken place between the defendants and subsequent purchasers and he intend to implead defendant Nos.7 to 12. The trial Court dismissed the said application. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting an application. The trial Court is required to examine as to whether "doctrine of lis pendens" applies to the sale in the suit. The suit in question being the suit for partition and petitioner is claiming share over the suit schedule properties, the properties consists of four items of the immovable properties and the trial Court is required to go into the issue of entitlement of the share and also with regard to whether earlier partition has taken place or not and issue with regard to the execution of the Will by the mother of defendant No.1 in favour of petitioner. When things stood thus, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings between the parties with regard to the suit schedule property, I am of the considered view that if the proposed defendant Nos.7 to 12 are to be brought on record, no prejudice would be caused to the other defendants. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, I pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26070 WP No. 49688 of 2019 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 26.08.2019 passed on I.A.No.20 filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.20 filed by the petitioner is allowed. iii. The defendant Nos.7 to 12 are permitted to be brought on record. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11