- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26938 WP No. 3037 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3037 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. THAYAMMA W/O LATE UGRAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 2. SRI. RAJANNA BIN LATE UGRAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS AGRICULTURIST BOTH ARE R/O AMALAGONDI, VADDARAHATTI VILLAGE, KALAMBELA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARAYAN MAYYAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANUMANTHAPPA BIN BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. SOWBHAGYA KOM LATE V SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. NAGARAJ BIN BUTHANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26938 WP No. 3037 of 2020 4. KAMALAMMA KOM KAREHONAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 5. GANGANNA BIN BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 6. HARIPRASAD BIN VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 7. PUTTAMMA KOM LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SINCE DECEASED REPESENTED BY HER LR. 7(A). LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O AMALAGONDI VADDARAHATTI VILLAGE, KALAMBELA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137. 8. GOVINDAPPA BIN LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/O AMALAGONDI, VADDARAHATTI VILLAGE, KALAMBELA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 137. 9. TAHASILDAR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 10. A R NARASIMAIAH S/O LATE RANGANNA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26938 WP No. 3037 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 11. RANGANATHAPPA S/O LATE RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 12. MAHALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 12 ARE ALL R/O KALLAMBELLA, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PATEL B. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R12; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.02.2020, NOTICE TO R1 TO R9 ARE DISPENSED WITH; R7(A) - SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, IN O.S.NO.52/2018, ON I.A.NO.II, DATED 2.1.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-J BY EXERCISING THE SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION AND GRANT THE RELIEF TO THE PETITIONERS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by petitioners challenging the order dated 02.01.2020 passed on I.A.No.II by the learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Sira in O.S.No.52/2018. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26938 WP No. 3037 of 2020 2. Sri. Narayan Mayyar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that petitioners have filed a suit for declaration that petitioners are the absolute owners of land measuring 6 acres of land out of land measuring 30 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.19 situated at Borasandra village, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakur District and also sought for permanent injunction against respondents, who are the legal representatives of the original vendor. It is submitted that, in the said suit, respondent Nos.10 to 12 filed an application for impleadment on the ground that they are the family members in a suit filed for partition. The Trial Court accepted the same and allowed the application for impleadment in the suit filed by petitioners. It is further submitted that it is the case of petitioners that the property purchased by petitioners is self acquired property and the extent in the sale deed is 6 acres. However, the Revenue Authorities incorrectly has shown as 4 acres 34 guntas, which is sought to be corrected before the Revenue Authorities. It is also submitted that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal closed the proceedings by directing the petitioners to workout their remedies elsewhere. Hence, the suit is filed seeking declaration that petitioners are the absolute - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26938 WP No. 3037 of 2020 owners of land measuring 6 acres of land. When things stood thus, respondent Nos.10, 11 and 12 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') seeking to implead themselves as defendants in the suit. The Trial Court allowed the said application without appreciating any of the facts. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 3. Sri. Patel D.Karegowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.10 to 12 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and seeks to dismiss the writ petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions advanced. 5. The petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.52/2018, which is pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Sira for relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Petitioners claimed that Sri. Ugrappa, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 purchased 6 acres of land - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26938 WP No. 3037 of 2020 from the original vender. Later, due to the mistake in the RTC, the extent is shown as 4 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No.19/2 after conducting phodi and remaining extent is added to the said Sy.No.19. Hence, he has initiated revenue proceedings, which ended by directing the petitioners to file a civil suit. Hence, the suit is filed for declaration in respect of the entire extent of 6 acres. 6. Respondent Nos.10 to 12 have filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking to implead themselves as defendants in O.S.Nos.52/2018 filed by petitioners, which came to be allowed by the Trial Court. The plaint in O.S.No.243/2015 filed by respondent Nos.10 to 12 indicate that the said suit is filed for relief of partition and separation possession of 1/4th share and item No.1 of the suit schedule property in the said suit is the same one, which is the suit schedule property in O.S.No.52/2018. The averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.243/2015 indicate that respondent Nos.10 to 12 are claiming that they are the coparceners of the joint family and properties shown in the plaint are joint family properties. Considering the said aspect, the Trial Court rightly - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26938 WP No. 3037 of 2020 came to conclusion that, the issue with regard to the nature of properties claimed by the petitioners is required to be gone into by Trial Court and held that the proposed defendants i.e., respondent Nos.10 to 12 are necessary and proper parties and allowed the application. 7. I do not find any error or perversity in the impugned order calling for interference in the present writ petition. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is devoid on merits and same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT: BHK