- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44823 WP No. 10518 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 10518 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O. LATE BHEEMARAJU D/O. KHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT KESTURU VILLAGE KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST. 2. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O. LATE SRIRANGAPPA D/O. KHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YAERS R/AT B.D.O. QUARTERS BEHIND TALUK PANCHAYAT SIRA GATE, MADHUGIRI TALUK MADHUGIRI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST. 3. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. RANGASWAMAIAH D/O. KHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS R/AT HALENAHALLY VILLAGE SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST. 4. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O. SHESHADRIKUMAR, D/O. KHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKABELLAVI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44823 WP No. 10518 of 2024 TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE KHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 2. SRI LAKSHMANA. K S/O LATE KHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT KESTURU VILLAGE KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST. 3. SRI PRADEEP K.S. S/O LATE K.S. SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 4. SMT. PREMALATHA D/O LATE K.C. RANGAIAH W/O G. RAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 5. SRI MANJUNATH. K. R. S/O LATE K.C. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE R/AT KESTURU VILLAGE KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 6. SMT. SHYLAJA D/O. LATE K. C. RANGAIAH W/O. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT PUTTASHAMAIAHNA PALYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44823 WP No. 10518 of 2024 (BY SRI GAGANDEEP E, ADV., FOR SRI AJITH P.B, ADV., FOR R-3; SRI NAGENDRA A, ADV., FOR R-4 TO R-6; R-2 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED; V/O/D 13.10.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-1 IS H/S) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05/03/2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 3 AND 4 FILED U/O 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC FOR IMPLEADING FILED BY R3 TO 6 IN OS NO. 177 /2021 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-G, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Plaintiff nos.1 to 4 are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 05.03.2024 passed on IA.nos.3 & 4 in O.S.No.177/2021 by the Court of III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.177/2021 is filed by the petitioners seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/7th share in the suit schedule property. The said suit was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objections. IA.no.3 is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44823 WP No. 10518 of 2024 filed by respondent no.3 herein under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC with a prayer to implead him as additional defendant no.4 in the suit. IA.no.4 is filed by respondent nos.4 to 6 herein under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead them as party defendant nos.5 to 7 in the suit. The said applications were opposed by the plaintiffs by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has allowed IA.nos.3 & 4 and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has not applied its mind and has passed the impugned order mechanically. Petitioners are not party to the suit for specific performance filed by the impleading applicant in IA.no.3. Therefore, applicant in IA.no.3 is not a necessary and proper party to the suit. So far as the applicants in IA.no.4 are concerned, undisputedly, they are not related to the plaintiffs or to the original defendants in the suit. They claim independent right over the suit scheduled property, and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in allowing their application. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44823 WP No. 10518 of 2024 5. Learned Counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the father of the plaintiffs has executed an agreement for sale in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the impleading applicant in IA.no.3. The suit for specific performance filed by the impleading applicant in IA.no.3 has been allowed. Execution filed by the impleading applicant is pending consideration. Therefore, he is just and necessary party to the suit. 6. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the impleading applicants in IA.no.4 submits that the plaintiffs claim right over the suit schedule property under one Khadrappa, who is not at all the owner of the suit schedule property. The grandfather of the impleading applicants was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs and their family members by playing fraud had managed to change the said revenue records of the land in their names and the revenue entries were successfully challenged by the impleading applicants. Therefore, to bring the true facts to the notice of the Trial Court, impleading applicants in IA.no.4 are also proper - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44823 WP No. 10518 of 2024 and necessary parties to the suit. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Suit in O.S.No.177/2021 is filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties. IA.no.3 is filed by respondent no.3 herein with a prayer to implead him as party defendant no.4. In the affidavit filed in support of the prayer made in IA.no.3, he has stated that the defendants viz., Khadrappa and his sons have entered into a registered agreement to sell with him agreeing to sell the suit schedule property and since they had failed to perform their part of contract, he had filed O.S.No.336/2016 seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract and the said suit has been now decreed, and he has filed an execution petition in Execution No.125/2019 to execute the decree of specific performance passed in O.S.No.336/2016. The plaintiffs are the daughters of defendant no.1 - Khadrappa, and according to the applicant in IA.no.3, Khadrappa and his sons have executed registered agreement for sale in his favour and he has been - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44823 WP No. 10518 of 2024 now granted the decree of specific performance of said agreement. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant in IA.no.3 is a proper and necessary party to the suit and the Trial Court was, therefore, justified in allowing IA no.3. 8. So far as IA.no.4 is concerned, applicants in the said application have stated in their affidavit that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties and the plaintiffs and defendants have colluded with the revenue officials and got the revenue entries of the suit properties changed in their names and the said entries were successfully challenged by them, and therefore, they are necessary parties to the suit. 9. Undisputedly, the applicants in IA.no.4 are not the family members of either the plaintiffs or defendant nos.1 to 3. Applicants in IA.no.4 claim independent right over the suit schedule properties and according to them their grandfather is the absolute owner of the said property. If that is so, it is for them to initiate appropriate proceedings before the proper forum to protect their title and interest in the suit schedule properties. However, they cannot be said to be proper and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44823 WP No. 10518 of 2024 necessary parties in O.S.No.177/2021 which is filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, which according to the plaintiffs is their ancestral and joint family properties. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in allowing IA.no.4. Accordingly, the following order: 10. The writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed on IA.no.3 in O.S.No.177/2021 by the Court of III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru, is confirmed, and the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed on IA.no.4 in O.S.No.177/2021 by the Court of III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru, is set aside. Consequently, IA.no.4 filed before the Trial Court is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK