- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 6297 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. CHIDANANDAIAH B T S/O THOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT BACHIHALLI, DUGADIHALLI POST CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. SHIVALINGAMMA W/O MAHALINGAIAH @ MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT VADDARA MALLENAHALLI SUGUR POST, TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214. 2 . SMT. SIDDALINGAMMA W/O B T MURTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BYADARAHALLI J.C. PURA POST, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214. 3 . SRI VEDANANDAMURTHY S/O THOTAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A NO. 48/43, 6TH MAIN ROAD, JNANJYOTHINAGAR - 2 - JNANABHARATHI BANGALORE - 560 056. 4 . SRI PRAVEEN B C S/O CHIDANANDA MURTHY @ CHIDANANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO. 819/6, 6TH E CROSS, 3RD FLOOR, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 010. 5. SMT. C.S.NIVEDITHA W/O VEDANANDA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.48/43, 6TH MAIN ROAD JYANAJYOTHI NAGAR, JYANABHARATHI BENGALURU – 560 056. 6. THE MANAGER CANARA BANK (VIJAYANAGAR BRANCH) NO.48, MAGADI CHORD ROAD HOSAHALLI EXTENSION, NEAR BMTC BUS STOP, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040. 7. THE MANAGER BANK OF INDIA (JNANAJYOTHINAGAR BRANCH) NO.2, 15TH CROSS, ULLALA MAIN ROAD, MUNESWARA LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 056. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHANKAR LINGAPPA NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R3 & R5; NOTICE TO R1, R2 & R4 ARE D/W, V/O DTD. 21.07.2020; R6 & R7 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF - 3 - CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE CCH-39 IN O.S.NO.6613/2008 DATED 14.01.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND FURTHER BE PLEASE TO ALLOW THE I.A.NO.12 AND 13. AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the Order dated 14.01.2020 passed on I.A.Nos.12 and 13 in O.S.No.6613/2008 on the file of the XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-39) and consequently allow the same. 2. The Petitioner no.1 herein is the plaintiff. Respondents No.1 to 4 herein are the Defendants No.2 to 5 before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed the suit O.S.No.6613/2008 against defendants seeking relief of partition and separate - 4 - possession seeking his 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff and defendant no.4 are the sons and the defendants no.2 and 3 are the daughters of Late Thotaiah, who is the defendant no.1 in the suit. It was averred in the plaint that the joint family business namely “Preethi Cad” (which is now “Preethi Cad Consulting Engineers Private Limited”) is established by plaintiff out of joint family income and its is managed by the defendant no.4 on behalf of the joint family as such the plaintiff is also entitled for the profit arising out of the said joint family business. It is alleged in the plaint that when the plaintiff demanded the same the defendants refused to affect the partition. 4. On service of summons, defendants appeared through their respective advocates and filed their written statement. The defendant no. 1 filed his statement contending that suit schedule items no. 1, 7 & 8 all the suit schedule properties are his self acquired properties and are not available for the partition and except suit items no. 1, 7 & 8 all the other suit schedule properties - 5 - are ancestral and therefore, plaintiff would be entitled to his share of 1/5th. Defendant NO. 2 filed her written statement in support of the plaintiffs case and sought for the decree of suit. The defendant no. 3 denied all the averments made in the plaint and defendant no. 4 filed his written statement specifically contending that plaintiff was adopted by late. Nanjappa who is the elder brother of the defendant no. 1 and hence he is no more a joint member and it was further averred that “Preethi Cad” is not the joint family business and sought for the dismissal of the suit. The defendant no. 5 got impleaded in the suit after the death of defendant no.1 on the basis of the registered will dated 28.10.2011 and contended that defendant no. 1 during his life time had executed a registered will bequeathing 1/5th share in the suit schedule property and sought for the decree of the suit and also filed his counter claim so far as item no. 7 & 8 contending that they are self acquired and executed a gift deed in his favour and therefore, item no. 7 & 8 are not available for the partition. - 6 - 5. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, properties item no. 16(a) to 16 (e), 17(a), 17(b) and 21 of the suit schedule properties were purchased by defendant no. 4 in the name of his wife C.S. Niveditha which led to the fling of application seeking to amend the plaint so as to include the said properties. The applications were numbered as I.A. No. 11,14 & 16. The Trial court after hearing both the sides allowed the said I.A.s permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint. 6. Plaintiff, after coming to know the fact that the defendant no.4 is making hectic efforts to deny the legitimate share by acquiring the properties his wife’s name, filed an applications under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the wife of the defendant no.4 as proposed defendant no.6 and to implead the Manager of Canara Bank, Vijayanagar Branch as well as Manager of Bank of India (Jnanajyothinagar Branch) as proposed defendants no.7 and 8. The said applications are numbered as I.A. No. 12 and 13. The Trial Court after hearing both the sides, - 7 - rejected the I.As.12 and 13. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this court. 7. Heard counsels for petitioner and Respondents No.3 and 5. Notices are served to Respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Respondents No.6 and 7 were served, but unrepresented. 8. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed defendants, i.e., respondents no. 6 to 8 are the necessary parties as the Item Nos.16 (a) to 16(e), 17(a), 17(b) and 21 of the suit schedule properties are standing in the name of the the proposed defendant No.6. 9. It was also contended that the defendant No.4 has mortgaged Item Nos.13, 14, 15(a), 16(b), 16(d) and 16(e) in favour of proposed defendants No.7 and 8 and therefore, both the proposed defendants are necessary parties in whose absence there cannot be effective adjudication of the matter. Another contention that was raised was that if the trial court concludes the trial, the parties to the suit cannot execute the decree as against - 8 - the proposed defendants as they are not parties to the suit. 10. It was further contended that with an intention to deny the plaintiff’s legitimate claim and misusing the joint family fund by acquiring the properties in the name of his wife name defendant no.4 is creating the unnecessary charges over the joint family properties. Thus the trial court ought to have allowed the impleading application. 11. It was contended that the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that in the concept of joint family, the property stands in the name of the coparcener or their wife’s name or in the name of daughters irrespective of members of the family. When the plaintiff disputed that the title of the properties stands in the name of the members in the joint family, the parties are necessary parties without them the suit cannot be concluded. Because the alleged members have to prove how they acquired the properties without the help from the joint income, when admittedly there is no partition till day and no independent source of income to the alleged member. - 9 - 12. It was further contended that the trial Court has erred in not considering that in the concept of joint Hindu family it does not matter in whose name the property is registered or purchased the real question has to be considered source of income, whether from self-earnings or from joint family income or from income derived from the joint family business to acquire the disputed properties. Burden of proof is on the member who has taken contention that it is self-acquired property to prove the same before the Court, as the same acquired by independent source of income or with the support of the joint family income. 13. By relying upon the judgment in Razia Begum vs Sahebazadi Anwar Begum and Ors, reported in AIR 1958 SC 886 wherein it was held that it is firmly established as a result of judicial decisions that in order that a person may be added as a prty to a suit, he should have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation whether it raises questions relating to movable or - 10 - immovable property, it was contended that proposed defendants ought to have been impleaded. 14. By relying upon Article 332 of Mulla Hindu Law, it was further contended that it is bank is inescapably a proper party and therefore, bank manager should be impleaded. It was further contended that in a suit for partition, the plaintiff is bound to implead as defendant 1. The Heads of all branches, 2. Females who are entitled to a share on partition, 3. The purchaser of a portion of the plaintiff’s share, the plaintiff himself being a coparcener, 4. If the plaintiff himself is a purchaser from a coparcener, his alienor and therefore the Trial Court ought to have impleaded the proposed defendants. 15. It can be observed from the impugned order of the trial court that after recording of evidence by plaintiff side, case was posted to evidence for defendant side and that’s when the plaintiff has filed I.A No. 12 & 13 u/o 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC for impleading applicants as defendants and it can be further observed that in I.A. No. 12 it was - 11 - averred that defendant no. 6 is neither coparcener nor having any right and share in the joint family properties. 16. The trial Court, by considering the same, came to the conclusion that no purpose will be served if proposed defendant No.6 who is wife of the defendant No.4 is impleaded. As far as the impleading of the bank Managers are concerned, trial court observed that defendants no.7 and 8, being bank officials are public officers and they could not be impleaded as proper or necessary parties and ultimately rejected the I.As. 17. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on perusal of the material on record, perusal of impugned Order passed by the trial Court and the Judgment relied by the counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the trial Court miserably failed to appreciate the facts on record, on settled legal position and dismissed the I.A.Nos.12 and 13 on 14.01.2020 which is not proper in the eye of law and failed to appreciate that on which grounds I.A. under Order I Rule 10 of CPC has to be allowed and further it is - 12 - contended that the defendant No.4 during the pendency of the above suit, by colluding with his wife and his brother- in-law C.S.Phalakshamurthy mortgaged some of the suit schedule joint properties and obtained loan of a sum of Rs.3 crores unilaterally and the loan obtained is not for the benefit of joint family or its members. The said loan amount taken by defendant No.4 and his wife only to lead their personal luxurious life and they have no right to avail loan on entire joint family property. Further, they relied upon the Judgment in Razia Begum case supra, wherein it is held that a person may be party to a suit, he should have direct interest in the matter of litigation whether it raises questions relating to movable or immovable property. 18. In view of the above discussion, I find that the defendant No.6 is the necessary and proper party to the suit proceedings for adjudication. 19. With the above observation, the following Order is passed: i) The Writ petition is allowed. - 13 - ii) The impugned Order dated 14.01.2020 passed on I.A.Nos.12 and 13 in O.S.No.6613/2008 on the file of the XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-39), is hereby set aside. iii) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within eight months from the date of receipt of this Order. iv) The parties shall co-operate for speedy disposal of suit. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv