- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25457 WP No. 16213 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16213 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGARATHNAMMA W/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SMT. RADHAMMA D/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 3. SMT. RAMYA D/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 4. SMT. RAJANI @ RACHANA D/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 5. SMT. GANGAMMA D/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 6. SRI MUTHAIAH S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NALLAIAHNAPALYA MANTANKURCHI HAMLET Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25457 WP No. 16213 of 2025 KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK – 562 123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SIDDAGANGAMMA D/O LATE YALLAPPA W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT BYREGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI MALLARABANAVADI POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 562 123. YALLAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS 2. SMT THIMMAKKA W/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 3. SRI SIDDAPPA S/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4. SRI GANGADHAR S/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5. SHIVANNA S/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25457 WP No. 16213 of 2025 6. MANJUNATH S/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 6 ARE R/AT BYREGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI MALLARABANAVADI POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 562 123. 7. SAVITHRAMMA W/O PRAKASHAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE AND POST KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 216. 8. BHANU KUMAR S/O H.RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.1863, 2ND CROSS SS PURAM, TUMKUR TOWN TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.N.GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.02-04-2025 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED ON IA IN OS.NO.732/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT NELAMANGALA, BY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25457 WP No. 16213 of 2025 OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER. CONSEQUENTLY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners - proposed defendants in O.S.No.732/2013 are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 02.04.2025, passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, whereby, the application – I.A.No.VI filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, by these petitioners seeking permission to implead themselves into the said suit as defendants, is dismissed. 2. Heard Sri Chandrashekar C., learned counsel for petitioners, Sri S.N.Gangadhara, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Srinivasa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5. 3. Respondent No.1 – plaintiff institutes a suit for partition. The petitioners file application – I.A.No.VI under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25457 WP No. 16213 of 2025 Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC seeking their impleadment into the proceedings. The impleadment of these petitioners is on several scores, one such is, that the property that is now shown as suit schedule property - item No.9 is already sold in favour of third parties. The petitioners are said to be the purchasers from the hands of the vendor of the property at item No.9 in the suit so filed. The documents are appended as Annexures B1, E1, E2, F1 and F2, which are the sale deeds and the gift deed respectively, qua the subject properties. 4. The apprehension of the petitioners is that, the parties to the partition suit would enter into a compromise and close the suit including the property at item No.9, which is in possession of the petitioners. To this, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it may lead to chaos and the right would be created amongst the members of the family of a property that is not even in existence or not even in their possession to seek partition. 5. The concerned Court has rightly rejected the application as in a suit for partition, a stranger cannot be permitted to come on record. The issue in the case at hand - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25457 WP No. 16213 of 2025 has a slight twist, as the petitioners are said to be in possession of the property and the contention is item No.9 is not in existence free of encumbrances for the plaintiff to seek partition of the property. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners apprehends that the compromise would be entered into by the plaintiff and the defendants. 7. Therefore, without disturbing the order that is passed by the concerned Court, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition, with a direction to the concerned Court to effect partition qua item No.9 either by compromise or by taking the suit to its logical conclusion on verification of the records of the availability of the property at item No.9 in accordance with law, after perusal of the necessary documents and the documents appended to the present petition. 8. The documents appended to the present petition be transmitted to the concerned Court for its perusal, prior to the passage of any orders. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25457 WP No. 16213 of 2025 9. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:SS