1 Reserved on :27.06.2025 Pronounced on :21.07.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.2030 OF 2023 (GM - CPC) BETWEEN: 1 . SMT.VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE SRI K.S.R. RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.102 JIVANADI APARTMENTS 1ST MAIN, TATA SILK FARM BENGALURU – 560 004. 2 . B.S.SHEKAR S/O LATE R.SHANKARNARAYANA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.21/1 RANGA RAO ROAD SHANKARPURAM BENGALURU – 560 004. 3 . B.S.RAGHAVAN S/O LATE R.SHANKARNARAYAN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.202 16TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE NEAR BDA COMPLEX 2 BENGALURU – 560 070. ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT.NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT.K.V.MALATHI W/O LATE S.K.SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS NO 454, 1ST A RISHAB BLESSINGS IDEAL HOME TOWN NEAR PETROL BUNK RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098 REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER MRS.MRUDULA S.S., D/O LATE S.K.SHIVALINGAIAH W/O PRAKASH V., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.454, 1ST A RISHAB BLESSINGS IDEAL HOME TOWN NEAR PETROL BUNK RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. 2 . KARNATAKA RAITHARA VASATHI NIRMANA SAHAKRA SANGHA NIYAMITHA (A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT) NO.92, 1ST FLOOR BULL TEMPLE ROAD CHAMARAJAPETE BENGALURU – 560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. ... RESPONDENTS 3 (BY SRI PRADEEP NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 WAIVED FOR PRESENT VIDE ORDER DATED 07/02/2023.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 2ND JANUARY 2023 IN O.S.NO.3347 OF 2016, PASSED BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 15) A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioners - defendant No.1 and proposed defendant Nos.3 and 4 are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 02.01.2023 passed on I.A.No.XV, by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.3347/2016, allowing the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to implead proposed parties as defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit. 4 2. Heard Smt. Nayana Tara B.G., leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Pradeep Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows; - The 1st respondent who is the plaintiff, institutes a suit in O.S.No.3347 of 2016 seeking a declaration that she is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of a sale deed dated 28-02-2005. Permanent injunction as a consequence is also sought at the hands of the concerned Court. The 1st respondent/plaintiff completes her evidence and trial in the case stood concluded on 06-09-2021 and the matter was posted for its final arguments on 15-09-2021. The plaintiff who is said to have obtained umpteen number of adjournments later filed an application to reopen the evidence. Those applications come to be allowed. Later, another application - I.A.No.XV comes about on 22-12-2021, five years after institution of the suit, under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC seeking to implead petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as defendants 3 and 4 in the suit on the strength of certain documents 5 purportedly pertaining to the suit schedule property. It is the averment in the petition that no copies of the application were even served upon the proposed defendants nor documents in support of the claim that the proposed defendants 3 and 4 were necessary parties to the lis, were produced. Defendants 3 and 4 having come to know of the application, filed their objections before the concerned Court. Notwithstanding the objections, all the three applications were allowed by the concerned Court including the application to bring in petitioners 2 and 3 as defendants 3 and 4, on 02.08.2022. This order was called in question before this Court in W.P.No.18728 of 2022. A coordinate bench of this Court allows the writ petition, sets aside the order and directs re-consideration of the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC. In compliance with the directions, the concerned Court re-hears the matter and allows the application in I.A.No.XV directing petitioners 2 and 3 to be impleaded as party defendants 3 and 4. It is this order that has driven defendant No.1 and the proposed defendants 3 and 4 to this Court in the subject petition. 6 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners / defendant No.1 and proposed defendants 3 and 4, Smt. Nayana Tara B.G. would vehemently contend that the proposed defendants are neither proper nor necessary parties. The suit schedule property has nothing to do with the possession of the proposed defendants. Five years after the institution of the suit; comes the application seeking to implead petitioner Nos.2 and 3; from nowhere not a single document is produced to demonstrate that the proposed defendants are necessary and proper parties to the lis. She would further contend that the suit schedule property of the plaintiff is totally different from the property of the proposed defendants 3 and 4. She would contend that without any rhyme or reason the proposed defendants, who are now 70 years old, are being dragged into the web of the proceedings. She would seek dismissal of application I.A.No.XV. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the 1st respondent/plaintiff would vehemently contend that on a bare perusal of the document qua suit schedule property, it becomes clear that the property on which the plaintiff is seeking declaration 7 and possession is gifted to the proposed 3rd defendant and the proposed 3rd defendant has sold it to the proposed 4th defendant. Therefore, they are necessary parties to the lis. He would seek dismissal of the petition and also seeks a direction for early disposal of the suit. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. Consideration of the afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass as to, whether petitioners 2 and 3/proposed defendants 3 and 4 are proper parties to the lis. 8. The lis is between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Relief of declaration and possession is sought against the 1st defendant in a suit filed in the year 2016. In 2021, the application comes to be filed seeking to implead petitioners 2 and 3 as defendants 3 and 4 in the suit. The affidavit filed along with the application reads as follows: 8 “…. …. …. 2. I state that, during the pendency of the above suit the defendant No.1 has executed a registered Gift Deed dated 18-08-2018 in favour of the proposed defendant No.3 vide document No.3380/2018-19 of BooK-1, stored in C.D.No.CMPD204 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi (Chamarajpet), Bengaluru. The proposed defendant No.3 had sold the suit schedule property in favour of proposed defendant No.4 and executed a registered sale deed dated 25-09-2018 vide Document No.4532/2018-19 if Book-I, stored in C.D. No.BSGD 335 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. 3. I state that the said suit schedule property has been allotted in favour of the plaintiff during the 1998. The proposed defendants 3 and 4 in collusion with the defendant No.1 have got obtained the alleged documents which are not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, the proposed defendants are proper and necessary parties in order to decide the controversy involved between the parties.” (Emphasis added) Not a single document is produced as to why these petitioners 2 and 3 are to be impleaded. The suit is being prosecuted by the General Power of Holder of the plaintiff. The reason for impleading is found in paragraphs 2 and 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was allotted in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1998 and she instituted the suit in 2016 owning to 9 interference by the 1st defendant. The suit schedule property is as follows: “All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Site No.244, in Assessment No.3/5, (Old No.3), Rajarajeshwarinagar CMC, Katha No.295, CMC property No.244/3 (Dwarakanagar-KRVNSS Lay-out), situated at Channasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring East to West on the northern side 41 feet on the Southern Side 40 feet, North to South on the eastern side 76 feet and on the Western side 85 feet and bounded on – East by: Site No.245 West by: Site No.243 North by: Private Property South by: Road.” (Emphasis added) The impleadment, as observed hereinabove, did not contain any document whatsoever for the proposed defendants to be dragged into these proceedings. Notwithstanding the same, this application along with other applications come to be allowed. These very petitioners call in question the said order before this Court in Writ Petition No.18728 of 2022, which comes to be allowed in part by the following order: “The learned counsel for the petitioners is categorical that the petitioners would confine this petition to the order insofar as 10 the application [I.A. No.XV] under Order I Rule 10[2] of the CPC, and civil Court's order insofar as this application reads as under: "I.A. Nos.XII to XIV under Order XVIII, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under Order VI, Rule 14[3] of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Order I, Rule 10[2] of the Code of Civil Procedure, are allowed. The plaintiff is permitted to produce the documents and get the same marked as implead defendants 3 and 4 as claimed in I.A. Nos.XII to XV." Though the learned counsel for the petitioners would seek to elaborate on the petitioners' objections, this Court is of the opinion that at this point of time, the petitioners must succeed on the short ground that the civil Court has not offered any reason to allow the application. The civil Court had to consider the merits of the application in the context of the dispute and the settled law that if a person is a necessary party as contemplated in law, such person must be impleaded, and if on the other hand, such person is only a proper party, the civil Court could exercise its direction to enable effective and complete adjudication if the other side is not prejudiced. The civil Court's order in this regard is manifestly wanting. Hence, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part; [b] The impugned order dated 02.08.2022 in O.S. No.3347/2016 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru insofar as the first respondent's application [I.A. No.XV] is quashed; [c] The application [I.A. No.XV] is restored for reconsideration calling upon the civil Court to consider this application within an outer limit of 11 four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [d] The civil Court may also consider rejecting the application for default if the petitioners can demonstrate that the first respondent– plaintiff has not served the copies of the documents filed in support of this application.” (Emphasis supplied) A direction was issued to re-consider the case of the petitioners herein as to whether the proposed defendants would be necessary parties or not. 9. As observed hereinabove, the lis is between the plaintiff, the 1stdefendant and the 2nd defendant, which is the Society registered under the Societies Registration Act through which the plaintiff claims to have secured allotment. The petitioners 2 and 3 are alleged to be purchasers of suit schedule property, which is Site No.244 in Assessment No.3/5 (Old No.3). No sale deed or any document as alleged i.e., the gift deed is produced before the concerned Court to contend that petitioners 2 and 3 are recipients of the gift or the sale of the very same property. Before this Court a document is produced i.e., the gift deed seeking to buttress the 12 submission that the property is the same. The schedule to the gift deed is as follows: “All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing vacant Site No.244, Khatha No.293/244/296/244 within the limits of Rajarajeshwarinagar Nagarsabhe, formed out of Sy.No.2/2, admeasuring East-76, West-85, North-41, South-40, totally measuring about 3260 sq.ft. carved out of the above survey number, situated at Channasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore and bounded as follows: East by: Site No.245 West by: Site No.243 North by: Private land South by: Road. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Donor has executed and has affixed his signature to this Gift Deed in the presence of the below mentioned attesting witnesses to this Gift Deed and the Donee hereby accepts the said Gift by subscribing his signature to this Gift Deed at Bangalore, on the day and the year first above written.” (Emphasis added) The schedule to the gift deed no-where matches with the schedule of the suit schedule property. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed on record certain rectification deeds to the principal deed. The registered deed of rectification reads as follows: 13 “DEED OF RECTIFICATION THIS DEED OF RECTIFICATION executed in Bangalore on this the day of Twenty Sixth June Two Thousand and Nineteen (26-06-2019) BETWEEN Mr. B.S.Shekar, aged about 63 years, S/o Late R. Sankaranarayana, residing at No.21/1, Ranga Rao Road, Shankarapuram, Bangalore-560 004, hereinafter called ‘the First Party’ (which expression shall unless repugnant to the context mean and include its successors-in-interest and assigns) on the One part. AND Mr. B.S. Raghavan, aged about 69 years, S/o Late R. Shankarayanaraya, residing at No.21/1 Ranga Rao Road, Shankarapuram, Bangalore-560 004, hereinafter called ‘the Second Party’ collectively (which expression shall unless repugnant to the context mean and include its successors-in- interest and assigns) on the other part. WHEREAS the First Party executed a Gift Deed dated 25th September, 2018 registered as Document No.BKI 4532/2018-19 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, hereinafter called ‘Principal Deed’, gifting in favour of the Second Party all right, title and interest in of all that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing vacant site No.244, within the limits of Rajarajeshwari Nagarasabhe, formed out of Sy.No.3/2, admeasuring East-76, West-85, North-41, Soth-40 totally measuring about 3260 sq.ft. carved out of the above survey number, situated at Channasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, which is more fully described in the schedule thereto and herein referred to as the SCHEDULE PROPERTY, out of natural love and affection. AND WHEREAS due to an inadvertent typographical error in the recital and Schedule of the Principal Deed the survey number of the Schedule Property has been mentioned as 2/2 instead of 3/2. AND WHEREAS the properties as the parties are executing this Deed of Rectification to rectify the aforesaid inadvertent typographical error. 14 NOW THIS DEED OF RECTIFICATI0N WITNESSESETH: 1. In page 1 line 24 of the Principal Deed the words “Sy.No.2/2” are hereby rectified as “Sy.No.3/2” 2. The existing Schedule to the Principal Deed be and is hereby substituted by the following Schedule: SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing vacant Site No.244, within the limits of Rajarajeshwarinagar Nagarsabhe, formed out of Sy.No.3/2, admeasuring East-76, West-85, North-41, South-40, totally measuring about 3260 sq.ft. carved out of the above survey number, situated at Channasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore and bounded as follows: East by : Site No.245 West by : Site No.243 North by : Private land South by : Road. Save and except as modified by this Deed of Rectification, the parties hereby declare that the Principal Deed shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their respective hands to these presents on the day, month and year first above written.” (Emphasis added) The deed of rectification takes place on 26-06-2019 long before the filing of the application before the concerned Court. 15 11. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 - plaintiff would vehemently contend that both the properties are bequeathed. While at the time of registration of sale, it was indicated that it is Sy.No.2/2 and it is rectified as 3/2. The suit schedule property is assessment No.3/5; how is it related to Sy.No.3/2 or old No.2/2 to assessment No.3/5 is unexplained and there is no document and there is no argument. In that light, these proposed defendants 3 and 4 who are in peaceful enjoyment of the property cannot be permitted to be dragged into these proceedings. They are neither necessary nor proper parties to the lis. For mere asking without there being any content in the affidavit, supporting the application under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC and without any supporting documents, the concerned Court has allowed the application. 12. It is settled that proper and necessary parties are to be impleaded. In the case at hand, the application is filed in the year 2021; the suit is instituted in the year 2016 on an alleged allotment of the year 2005 and the cause of action is said to have arisen in the year 2013 when the 1st defendant began to interfere with the 16 possession of the plaintiff. When the suit schedule property is completely different, the plaintiff cannot now implead the neighbours close or distant, to answer the claim of the plaintiff against 1st defendant or the 2nd defendant. In that light, the concerned Court has grossly erred in allowing the application of the plaintiff notwithstanding serious objection of defendant No.1 who at all times is contesting the suit. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The Application/I.A.No.XV filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC filed by the plaintiff before the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.3347 of 2016, is rejected. 17 (iii) Since the suit is of the year 2016, the concerned Court shall endeavour to conclude the suit within an outer limit of six months. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ CT:MJ