- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16159 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAMESH S/O H.M.NANJUNDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 2. SRI R.KISHORE S/O LATE T.S.NEELAMMA S/O P.RAJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. SRI R. RAJAKIRAN S/O LATE T.S.NEELAMMA S/O P.RAJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE BOTH R/AT HOSAHALLI (KOTHAPALLI) VILLAGE, SEVAGANAPALLI PANCHAYAT AND POST, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 4. SMT.N.SUVARNA Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 D/O SMT.SAMPAMMA @ AMMAYYAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.55, RAMANPETE CROSS, SIDDANNA GALLI, CUBBONPETE, BENGALURU – 560 002. 5. SMT.R.RADHAMMA D/O K.R.RUDHRARADHYA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NEAR BANAHALLI CROSS, CHANDAPURA TOWN, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 6. SMT.N.PRABHA W/O C.MALLESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT MARASURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 7. SRI K.VENKATARAM S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT BOMMASANDRA TOWN, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 8. SRI R.RAJAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT HEELALIGE VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.JAYAMMA D/O.LATE GOVINDAPPA W/O.LAKSHMI NARAYANAPPA V., AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT NO.350, 4TH AVENUE, 5TH MAIN, TEACHERS COLONY KORAMAGALA 1 BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 034. 2. SMT.SAROJAMMA W/O. LATE MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, 3. SMT. B. M. KAVITHA D/O. LATE MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE BOTH RESIDING AT NO.256, KHB COLONY KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034. 4. SRI.B.M.HARISH S/O LATE MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 109 C BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR PURVI LOTUS APARTMENT HOSAPALAYA ROAD, HSR LAYOUT, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 BENGALURU – 560 068. 5. SRI.CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O DORASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.350, 4TH AVENUE, 5TH MAIN, TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANGALA 1 BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 034. 6. SRI SHESHADRI S/O DORASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.277C, 9TH MAIN, SHANTHINIKETHAN LAYOUT VYSHYA BANK COLONY, ARAKERE, BENGALURU – 560 076. 7. SRI SUBRAMANI S/O DORASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 8. SMT. D. RADHA D/O DORASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 ARE BOTH R/AT SY.NO.90/2, DOOR NO.414 AND 413, KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE ELECTRONIC CITY POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 100. 9. SRI MANJU BHARGAVA S/O LATE D.BHAKTAVATSALA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.8/244, SRIVARI NILAYAM, M.MANJULA BADAVANE II MAIN, II CROSS, BEHIND COURT, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 10. SMT.RAJAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE, ELECTRONIC CITY POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 100. 11. SMT. GAYATHRAMMA W/O.NAGARAJ C.V., AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.58, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU – 562 130. 12. SMT. PUSHPAVATHI W/O. GOPALAPPA C., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT KAMMAVARIPETE NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE HOSAKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 13. SMT. MANJULA R., W/O. LATE K.C.RAGHU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 14. SRI GOVINDARAJ S/O. LATE K.C.RAGHU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 15. SMT. VANDANA D/O. LATE K.C.RAGHU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 16. SRI K. C. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 17. SRI K. C. JAGADISH S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 18. SRI K. C. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.13 TO 18 ARE R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE ELECTRONIC CITY POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU – 560 100. 19. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE N.VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT KALLANAKUPPE DODDAMARAVADI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 20. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O. LATE N.VENKATARAMANAPPA W/O. SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 21. SRI MUNIRATHNAPPA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO. 89, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT III CROSS, KODICHIKKANAHALLI OPP. M.G.SCHOOL BENGALURU – 560 078. 22. SRI APPAJI S/O LATE N. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT KALLANAKUPPA DODDAMARALAVADI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 23. SMT. ROOPA N., W/O.LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 24. M.S.KEERTHANA K., D/O.LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. 25. KUM. MADHUSHREE D/O.LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.25 IS MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 GUARDIAN, SMT. ROOPA N., 26. SRI. RAVI V., S/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESPONDENTS 20, 22 TO 25 ARE RESIDING AT NO.59, VENKATADRI ANUGRAHA LAYOUT PHASE II, NEAR PRESIDENCY SCHOOL BILEKAHALLI, B.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 076. 27. SRI. NARAYANAPPA N., S/O LATE YENGAMMA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT KALLAANAKUPPA DODDAMARAVALADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 28. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. LATE N.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 29. SRI. MOHAN KUMAR W/O LATE N.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 30. SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O. LATE N.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 31. SMT. SHOBHA D/O. LATE N.SRINIVAS - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 32. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O. LATE YENGAMMA, W/O. LATE HADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 28 TO 32 ARE R/AT NO.9, 16TH MAIN, KSRTC LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078. 33. SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE YENGAMMA W/O S.Y.VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.23 OLD GURAPPANAPALYA NEAR SRINIVASA STORES BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 076. 34. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE YENGAMMA W/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.24 OLD GURAPPANAPALYA NEAR SRINIVASA STORES BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 076. 35. SMT. SHARADHAMMA D/O LATE CHENGALARAYAPPA AND KAMALAMMA W/O LATE D.C.KRISHNAPPA - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.340, 17TH 'C' MAIN, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095. 36. SMT.PAPAMMA D/O LATE CHENGALARAYAPPA AND KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT THATTAGANAPALLI VILLAGE MUTHALLI POST, HOSUR TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI M.S.VARADARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-19) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL. ON IA NO. II TO VIII IN F.D.P NO. 4/2021 FOUND AT ANNEXURE -V ALLOW THIS WP WITH COSTS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners/proposed respondents 36 to 43, in final decree proceedings 04/2021, are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 21-04-2025, by which the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 applications filed by these petitioners to implead themselves into the final decree proceedings is turned down. 2. Heard Sri A Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri Siddharth B. Muchandi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M. S. Varadaraj, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.19. 3. The issue in the lis has a history. On 15-05-1989, it transpires O.S.No. 134 of 1989 is preferred by one Munirathnam for partition and separate possession. The suit is decreed on 31-05-2002. A regular appeal filed thereon and the regular second appeal preferred against the order passed in the regular appeal comes to be dismissed. Pursuant to the dismissal of the regular second appeals at the hands of this Court, the final decree proceedings are instituted in the year 2021. On 06-06-2022 after institution of FDP proceedings, the petitioners herein file applications to implead themselves in the said FDP in order to protect their rights. The rights of the petitioners that they wanted to protect was the sale that has taken place during the pendency of the original suit from the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 hands of one Chandrashekaraiah and his family, who are respondents 10 to 18 in the subject proceedings. The application comes to be rejected by the concerned Court by the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel, Sri A Madhusudhan Rao, appearing for petitioners would submit that petitioners can have no claim beyond what the claim of Chandrasekhar and his family would be, who are respondents 10 to 18, from whose hands the petitioners have purchased the property in 8½ guntas of land, which has now fallen to the share of Chandrasekhar and his family. The learned counsel would further contend that they would not seek any claim with regard to other properties allotted to others, as the right of the petitioners would flow only from the right of those who moved from Chandrashekaraiah and family, respondents 10 to 18 herein. 5. Learned counsels Sri Siddharth B Muchandi and Sri M S Varadaraj appearing for respondents would accept the position of law that the petitioners who are purchasers during the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 pendency of the suit have a right to get themselves impleaded in the final decree proceedings, once the undivided share would become a divided share appropriately in the final decree proceedings. The learned counsel would further contend that suit is of the year 1989. Therefore, the suit should see a finality. The learned counsels would accept the submission of the petitioners’ counsel Sri A Madhusudhan Rao that they would not claim any other property beyond the claim of Chandrasekhar and his family/respondents 10 to 18 herein. 6. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the suit is of the year 1989 and 36 years have passed by. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality into the subject FDP 4 of 2021 and allow the applications filed by these petitioners before the concerned Court and permit them to claim their right, in the light of the observations made in the course of the order. 7. Yet another factor needs to be noticed is, the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench, which had directed an - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 enquiry to be conducted in W.P.No.8756 of 2022. The co- ordinate bench has held as follows: “…. …. …. 10 This Court must also observe that the civil Court, as it may not have due assistance from the learned counsels, must decide the merits of the application for impleadment filed by the concerned purchasers and the decree to be drawn without constraints of completing the enquiry for drawing up of a final decree within a certain time frame, and that the civil Court must also consider the second to twenty-fifth respondents' contention that even if these purchasers are entitled to any interest in the subject property, they could claim only such interest in those portions which are allotted to the petitioners and the first respondent and if there is any shortfall in the respective portions in the subject property, the same must be allotted in the other properties allotted to them. In the light of afore, the following ORDER The application [IA No.1/2023] stands disposed of quashing the civil Court's order dated 11.09.2023 and restoring enquiry for drawing up of final decree proceedings in the light of the undisputed facts and the contentions as recorded in the course of this order, and the civil Court shall conclude the proceedings in the light of the afore at the earliest after due opportunity to all the concerned.” The said order has become final, therefore the enquiry now before the concerned Court, must ensue. 8. The petitioners, as observed hereinabove, admittedly are the purchasers from one Chandrashekaraiah, a co-sharer in the joint family property and they have purchased the property - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 during the subsistence of the suit. Therefore, they are entitled to be parties in the final decree proceedings to protect their right, as observed by the Apex Court in the case of DHANLAKSHMI v. P.MOHAN1. It reads as follows: “5. Section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit. In the instant case, the appellants have admittedly purchased the undivided shares of Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 6. It is not in dispute that the first respondent P. Mohan has got an undivided share in the said suit property. Because of the purchase by the appellants of the undivided share in the suit property, the rights of the first respondent herein in the suit or proceeding will not affect his right in the suit property by enforcing a partition. Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co- sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings. In our opinion, the appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit, which is now pending before the trial court. We also make it clear that we are not concerned with the other suit filed by the mortgagee in these proceedings.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the preceding analysis and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DHANLAKSHMI supra, the impleading applicants must be permitted to come on record. The order of the concerned Court having held otherwise is rendered unsustainable in law. 1 (2007)10 SCC 719 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23631 WP No. 16159 of 2025 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 21-04-2025 impugned stands quashed. (iii) The application filed by the petitioners seeking impleadment into the FDP proceedings 4 of 2021 stands allowed. (iv) The concerned Court shall conclude the enquiry as is directed by the coordinate bench in the order quoted supra and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. (v) In the light of the suit being of 36 years vintage, the concerned Court shall conclude the final decree proceedings within an outer limit of 8 weeks, if not earlier and generate all consequential actions, in accordance with law. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49