- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26438 W.P. No.31998/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.31998/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. JAMEEL AHMED KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL BASITH KHAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT:NO.473, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS VENKATARANGA PURAM PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU 560003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.S. VINOD, ADV., FOR SRI. SHANKAR T.N. ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. FATHIMA BI SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S. DR. SHAAFI MASOOD D/O LATE M. MASOOD AHMED AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.447/31, 7TH CROSS I BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560011. 2. SMT. SHAZADI BI W/O MOHD. MOOSA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.32, 2ND B STREET THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU 560001. 3. SMT. ZAREENA BEGUM W/O RAFIZ AHMED AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.611/6, 5TH CROSS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26438 W.P. No.31998/2019 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560095. 4. MR. JOHNSON HERALD THOMAS S/O LATE T.K. THOMAS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT: NO.244 2ND C CROSS, 4TH BLOCK H.B.R. LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560043. 5. DR. MASIHA FARHANA W/O DR. KHALID AHMED AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE 100 FEET RING ROAD B.T.M. LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560068. 6. MR. SYED ALAUDDIN KHADRI S/O LATE K. SYED MURTAZA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.298, 8TH CROSS J.H.B.C.S. LAYOUT, KADIRENAHALLI J.P. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU 560078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. UMESH B.N. ADV., FOR SRI. NARAYANA REDDY M, ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:31.10.2019 NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 ARE D/W R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.07.2019 PASED BY THE IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH- 21) ON I.A.NO.12 IN O.S.NO.26113/2007 AND DIRECT THE IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU(CCH-21) TO SET ASIDE THE AMENDMENT OF IMPLEADING THE R-2 AS PLAINTIFF NO.2 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26438 W.P. No.31998/2019 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking for the following relief: "i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure- A, the impugned order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the IV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-21) on IA No.12 in O.S.No.26113/2007. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the IV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-21) to set aside the amendment of impleading the respondent No.2 as plaintiff No.2." 2. Heard. 3. Sri.C.S.Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Smt.Fathima Bi had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioner and others on the premise that they have got a sale deed registered based on the forged General Power of Attorney (GPA). The plaintiff adduced the evidence, put forth her case which has been denied by the defendants in the suit. Later, during the pendency of the suit, the said Smt.Fathima Bi died. The respondent No. 1 herein and two others filed an application claiming to be the legal heirs which came to be rejected. It is submitted that the said order of the Trial Court was assailed in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26438 W.P. No.31998/2019 W.P.Nos.63231/2016 and 6419-6420/2017 wherein this Court set aside the said order of the Trial Court and remanded the matter back to hold an enquiry. It is further submitted that after the remand, the Trial Court considered I.A.Nos.12 to 14 filed by the respondent No.1 and others and rejected the application seeking to claim as the legal heirs. However, the Trial Court permitted the respondent No.1 to continue the suit as a plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the original plaintiff has executed the gift deed in favour of the respondent No.1. It is also submitted that the application filed by the respondent No.1 and others under Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC does not whisper anything with regard to the gift deed. It is contended that in the entire enquiry, the applicants have not claimed any independent right based on the alleged gift deed. Hence, the Trial Court's finding under the impugned order on point No.4 is nothing but forcing the donee i.e the respondent No.1 to come on record as plaintiff which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26438 W.P. No.31998/2019 4. Per contra, Sri.Umesh B.N., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the respondent No.1 has succeeded to the estate of the original plaintiff Smt.Fathima Bi and hence, he has every right to defend the suit filed as a successor in interest but may not be as a legal heir. It is submitted that the Trial Court has recorded a clear finding in the impugned order with regard to the claim of the respondent No.1 and others as legal heirs and further recorded that the respondent No.1 being the successor in interest by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 30.07.2013, is entitled to come on record and continue the proceedings which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both the sides. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26438 W.P. No.31998/2019 6. The material on record indicates that one Smt.Fathima Bi-the original plaintiff filed O.S.No.26113/2007 for the relief of declaration, injunction and other reliefs with regard to the suit schedule property referred in the plaint, which is pending before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The averments in the plaint indicate that the original plaintiff has made an assertion that the defendants in the suit are the purchasers and they acquired the title based on the forged GPA and that the sale deeds, are not binding on her. The purchasers filed a written statement. The Trial Court recorded the evidence. During the pendency of the said suit, the original plaintiff died on 14.01.2014. The respondent No.1 herein and two others claiming to be the legal heirs of the original plaintiff- Smt.Fathima Bi filed applications which came to be rejected by the Trial Court on 27.04.2016. The said applicants filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.63231/2016 and 6419-6420/2017 which came to be allowed by this Court on 13.06.2017. The aforesaid order of this Court indicates that the applications filed by the applicants in I.A.Nos.12 to 14 are restored on the file of Trial Court and the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the same. Primarily, the said applications were rejected as the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26438 W.P. No.31998/2019 applications were presented by quoting the wrong provision of law. After remand by this Court, the applications were duly considered by the Trial Court, enquiry was conducted and the parties have led the evidence. During the course of the evidence, the respondent No.1 and other applicants got marked the registered gift deed dated 30.07.2013 as Ex.P24. The Trial Court, considering the rival contentions and the material on record has answered the point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative holding that the applicants are not the legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff-Smt.Fathima Bi. However, on point No.4, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that as per Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, the applicant No.1 i.e the respondent No.1 herein, who has succeeded to the estate under the gift deed, is a proper and necessary party to adjudicate the real dispute between the parties. I am of the considered view that the aforesaid finding of the Trial Court on point No.4 under the impugned order is strictly in consonance with law. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no whisper in the pleading or in the evidence with regard to the gift deed and that the claim of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26438 W.P. No.31998/2019 respondent No.1 that he intends to continue the proceedings as a successor in interest of the estate of the deceased-original plaintiff. In my considered view, such contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit. The Trial Court has taken note of the gift deed dated 30.07.2013 produced by the applicants which clearly indicates that the respondent No.1 has succeeded to the estate of the deceased-original plaintiff. Hence, he is entitled to continue the proceedings initiated by the deceased Smt.Fathima Bi. I do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court calling for any interference in the present proceedings. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has suppressed the gift deed and the same was brought at the fag end of the proceedings and the issue with regard to the limitation is required to be considered by the Trial Court, I am of the considered view that the said issue is not the subject matter of the present petition and it cannot be gone into. It is needless to observe that all the contentions urged by the parties are kept open to be urged in the pending suit. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26438 W.P. No.31998/2019 9. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21