- 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. 23130 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1 . SRI GOPAL REDDY @ GOPALA A AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O ABBAYYA REDDY R/AT GOKULA NILAYA KONAPPANA AGRAHARA ELECTRONI CITY POST BANGALORE 560100. 2 . KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O ABBAYYA REDDY RESIDING AT GOKULA NILAYA KONAPPANA AGRAHARA ELECTRONIC CITY POST BANGALORE-560100 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. ANUPAMA M.V., ADV.) AND: 1 . SRI. D K MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE D. R. KRISHNAPPA R/AT DODDATHOUGURU VILLGE ELECTRONI CITY POST BANGALORE 560 100. 2 . SMT. MAMATHA K AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O D K MANJUNATH R/AT DODDATHOUGURU VILLGE - 2 - ELECTRONI CITY POST BANGALORE 560 100. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORIGINAL SUIT BEARING NUMBER 623 OF 2011, PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A 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 set aside the order dated 02.08.2022 passed on I.A. under Order I Rule 10(2) in O.S.No.623/2011 on the file of the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore and to call for the records pertaining to the same. - 3 - 2. The Petitioner no.1 herein is the impleading applicant and Petitioner no.2 is the plaintiff before the Court. Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein are the Defendants No.1 and 2 before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The suit schedule property is the ancestral property belonging to the petitioner no.2 and his family members. The Petitioner no.1 is the younger brother of the petitioner no.2. The 2nd Petitioner’s father Sri Late Abbaiah Reddy died intestate leaving behind his wife Smt.Pillamma and three children namely Krishna Reddy-petitioner no.2, A.Gopala @ Gopala Reddy-petitioner no.1 and one daughter by name Ammayamma to succeed to his estate. After the demise of their father, the uncles of the petitioners and their mother came to an understanding and partitioned all the properties of the joint family and the same was reduced to writing and registered on 15.05.1993, before the Sub Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk. - 4 - As per the partition deed, ‘A’ Schedule Property was has been allotted to the share of Krishna Reddy i.e., the Petitioner No. 2 herein representing the branch of the deceased Abbaiah Reddy, ‘B’ schedule property has been allotted to the Narayana Reddy and ‘C’ Schedule property has been allotted to share of the Chinnappa Reddy. The eastern side of the survey No. 37/2 to the extent of 136 feet from the east to west has been allotted to the share of 2nd petitioner’s family, towards western side of ‘A’ Schedule property to an extent of 150 feet has been allotted to the share of Narayana Reddy and towards extreme western side of the remaining property has been allotted to the share of Shri Chinnappa Reddy. The above said Survey No. 37/2 towards east, there exists a channel of two links which belongs to different survey numbers of different village. Towards the west side of the property there exists a channel of more than 30 feet. The said channel runs from South to North towards the west of Survey No. 37/2 . Towards south of the said channel there exists a Hosur main Road which runs from north west to - 5 - South east of the said channel. Since that channel was a dead channel, the 2nd Petitioner’s family members and his uncles late Narayana Reddy and Late Chinnappa Reddy and other neighbouring survey number owners beside the channel were reaching the property through the channel only, to carry the agricultural equipment, fertilizers etc., and to carry on agriculture activities. As of now, there are many layouts, apartments, industries which have come up on both the sides of the channel which is now a pecca road. As admitted by the Respondents no.1 and 2, the water channel/Rajakaluve found on the western side of the survey No. 37/2 was closed by the government authorities and formed a road to facilitate the residents residing on the inner side connecting Hosur Main road. The said road has been utilized for the beneficial enjoyment of the survey no. 37 and other adjacent survey numbers. In fact, the earlier the survey no. 37/2 was a single holding and it belonged to ancestors of the petitioner no. 2, which after partition, was divided into different tenements. Even after - 6 - the division of the property, the ‘A’ schedule holder/tenement holder were moving to their land through the ‘C’ and ‘B’ schedule property/tenement only and thus ‘C’ and ‘B’ are serveint heritage to ‘A’ which is dominant heritage and Petitioner No.2 and his family members are using easmentry right of way existing in the ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule property of the partition deed to carry on their agricultural activities uninterruptedly from time to time. Except the afore said way, there is no other way to reach to the 2nd petitioner’s land and therefore, 2nd petitioner has been using the right of way/free movement which was not interrupted earlier by the Respondents No-1 and his father & Respondent No-2. This being the case, Respondents No. 1 & 2 have taken the advantage of the situation and pressurized the petitioner no. 2 to sell his property at a meagre price. Having refused to sell, the Respondents No.2 had started obstructing the petitioner no-2 and his family members’ free movement and thereby constraining the petitioner no- 2 to file a suit for declaration of easement and permanent - 7 - injunction before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District which was later transferred to III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner no.1 who was having vested rights over the suit schedule property along with other properties had filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of their family properties in O.S. No. 885/2011 before the Hon’ble II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore which was decreed as per the compromise petition and the suit schedule property has been allotted to the share of petitioner no-1 who then became the absolute owner of the property. Since the petitioner no-1 is the necessary party to the suit in O.S No. 623/2011 as he has acquired the absolute rights over the suit schedule property partition decree, as the plaintiff in O.S. No. 623/2011 has transferred his rights, title and interest. Therefore, filed an I.A under Order I Rule 10 (2) to come on record as plaintiff no.2. The Trial Court after hearing - 8 - both the sides, dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this court. 4. Heard learned Counsel on Both the sides. 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trial Court has disregarded the legitimate and justified grounds and since the Petitioner No-1 is the necessary party in whose absence there cannot be effective adjudication of dispute, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application. It was also contended that the Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the first petitioner’s will be affected if he is not brought on record. 6. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, on perusal of the material on record and the impugned proceedings dated 02.08.2022 passed on I.A. under Order I Rule 10(2) in O.S.No.623/2011 on the file of the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore, it is observed that the Applicant did not state anything as to when the cause of action arose against the defendants and applicant did not state anything as to how he is necessary - 9 - and proper party to the suit. Neither the applicant stated as to how his rights are infringed, if he is not impleaded nor the trial Court gave a finding that to decide the ownership over the subject matter and to decide the right of easementary. 7. In view of the above discussion, I find that the trial Court has rightly concluded and dismissed I.A. under Order I Rule 10(2) vide Order dated 02.08.2022 in O.S.No.623/2011 on the file of the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore and there is no need to interfere in this Order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv