- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36159 WP No. 20307 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 20307 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE INDLABELE VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT BY ITS CONVENOR Z/PRESIDENT SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY D S/O DYAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT VILLA NO. A 1 NVT MYSTIC GARDEN BEHIND INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL INDLABELE VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562 107 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.C. JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RUSHYA SHRUNGA SHASTRI S/O LATE VENKATESHA SHASTRI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL ALUK Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36159 WP No. 20307 of 2025 BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 107 2. SRI B V RAJANNA (SINCE DEAD BY LRS) SUBHARATHNAMMA W/O LATE B V RAJANNA MAJOR 3. SMT. GEETHA D/O LATE B V RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 4. MUKUNDA S/O LATE B V RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 5. SMT. KATHYANI D/O LATE B V RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO. 151, KOTE STREET NEAR NANJUNDESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 107 6. SMT. B N SUSHEELA W/O LATE ANANDA AND D/O LATE B V RAJANNA NO.160, BRAHMINS STREET BERIKERI, SOOLAGIRI TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT - 635 105 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36159 WP No. 20307 of 2025 7. SRI B V LAKSHMINARAYANA SHASTRI S/O LATE VENKATESHA SHASTRI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 49, 3RD CROSS EJIPURA MAIN ROAD VIVEKNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 047 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MS. SIRI R., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL IN OS NO. 724/2017. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.06.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 18 IN OS NO. 724/2017 BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR JUDGE AND JMFC AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36159 WP No. 20307 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 13.06.2025, passed by the II Additional Senior Judge and JMFC, rejecting an application – I.A.No.18 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking its impleadment as party respondent in O.S.No.724/2017. 2. Heard Sri M.C.Jayaykirthi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned senior counsel for Smt. Siri R., learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is Anjanaya Swamy Temple (for short ‘the temple’), represented by its Convenor / President. A suit in O.S.No.724/2017 comes to be instituted seeking partition and separate possession, between the members of the family as found in the suit. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the partition and separate possession or otherwise of the suit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36159 WP No. 20307 of 2025 scheduled properties. The petitioner - the temple seeks permission to implead itself into the said suit seeking partition and separate possession, on the score that item No.5 of the suit schedule properties is part of the land on which the petitioner - temple, is situated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that barring item No.5, he has no other submission to make with regard to other claims made in the suit. It is his submission that, claiming certain rights, several Archaks and the occupants of the said temple, have filed applications before the Deputy Commissioner for confirmation of occupancy rights. An application filed by one such Archak is rejected by the concerned Court and challenging the order of rejection, an appeal is preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Appeal No.840/2014. The Deputy Commissioner has stayed the impugned order therein and the appeal is pending consideration. Claiming to be a proper and necessary party, the petitioner files an application to implead itself into the suit seeking partition and separate possession. The concerned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36159 WP No. 20307 of 2025 Court, by the impugned order dated 13.06.2025, rejects the same. 5. It is trite law that in a suit for partition between the members of the family, a stranger has no place. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a member of the family, it is concerned only with regard to item No.5 of the suit schedule properties and the appeal is pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in revision appeal No.840/2014. 6. In the aforesaid circumstance, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6 in unison would submit that if the petitioner’s right is not jeoparadised in the proceedings before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, it would suffice for the present. 7. In the light of the aforesaid submission, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition holding/observing that insofar as item No.5 is concerned, it would remain subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the said revision appeal. Except this, there is no - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36159 WP No. 20307 of 2025 warrant of interference with the order impugned, which is rendered on cogent reasons, which this Court does not find any perversity to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. With aforesaid observations qua item No.5 of the suit scheduled properties, the petition being devoid of merit, stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK/nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 118