- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17185 WP No. 109213 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.109213 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMCHANDRA MAHADEV KAMBLE AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 2. SMT. ARUNA PARASHURAM KAMBLE AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O NASALAPOOR, TQ- RAIBAG, DT- BELAGAVI 591317. 3. SMT. KANCHAN MADHUKAR SHITOLE AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O PANGERI(A), TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 4. SMT. SHOBHA RAMCHANDRA KAMBLE AGE-48 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEHOLD, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 5. SMT. MADHURI SATAPPA KAMBLE AGE- 45 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEHOLD, R/O SHIPPUR, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHANKUNTALA GIREPPA KAMBLE AGE-66 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEHOLD, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.10 16:35:53 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17185 WP No. 109213 of 2025 2. SMT. SHALABAI GIREPPA KAMBLE AGE-69 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEHOLD, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 3. SMT. MALA YELLAPPA POOJARI AGE-64 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEHOLD, R/O HIREKUDI, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. MANGALA ASHOK KAMBALE DIED ON 16/11/2025 RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. 4. SMT. SUSHILA KIRAN PUJERI AGE-42 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEHOLD, R/O HIREKUDI, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 5. SRI. SACHIN ASHOK KAMBLE AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 6. SMT. RESHMA KIRAN SHINDHE AGE-37 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEHOLD, R/O KARADAGA, TQ- NIPPANI, DT- BELAGAVI 591237. 7. SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI KHANDU KAMBLE AGE-50 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEHOLD, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 8. SRI. GIRISH KHANDU KAMBLE AGE-32 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 9. SRI. LOHIT KHANDU KAMBLE AGE-29 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17185 WP No. 109213 of 2025 10. SRI. MANOHAR NARASING KAGE AGE-75 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 11. SRI. KIRAN ASHOK KAGE AGE-46 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 12. SRI. SHRINATH S/O SURESH KAGE AGE-25 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 13. SRI. SURAJ S/O JAYAKAR KAGE AGE-31 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 14. SRI. MARTAND S/O JERU WAGHE AGE- 75 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 15. SRI. SANJAYKUMAR S/O ARJUN KAMBLE AGE-52 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. 16. SRI. APPASAHEB BHARAMA WARALE AGE-71 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O KHADAKLAT, TQ- CHIKKODI, DT- BELAGAVI 591228. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2025 IN O.S.NO.92/2025 BY THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKODI VIDE ANNEXURE-G AS NULL AND VOID & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17185 WP No. 109213 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 29.10.2025, marked as Annexure-G, passed in O.S.No.92/2025 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikkodi1. 3. The Trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondents No.12 to 16, who sought to come on record as defendants No.13 to 17 in O.S.No.92/2025. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the suit is one for partition and separate possession. The proposed defendants, who have now been allowed to come on record, are claiming rights over the properties on the basis of M.E.No.1345. The dispute relating to this entry in the record of rights is still pending adjudication before the Deputy Commissioner. Unless their rights are established, they cannot be impleaded in a suit for partition and separate possession between the family members. 1 For short, ‘Trial Court’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17185 WP No. 109213 of 2025 5. It is further urged that, in case the application is allowed, the scope of inquiry in the suit would be unnecessarily enlarged. 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 7. At this stage of the proceedings, it appears that M.E.No.1345 is not disputed by the parties. The said entry would reveal that certain properties are recorded in the names of five persons, namely Govind Allappa Kamble, Narasingh Santaram Kage, Krishna Maragendra Warale, Bharama Pakshi, Chennappa Omanna Tharkar. The extent of lands said to have been possessed by each of these persons is also mentioned in M.E.No.1345. 8. Referring to the said entry, learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that, since a specific extent is mentioned against the names of each of the above persons, it must be deemed that the properties in question are the separate properties of these five persons and not the joint family property as contended by the proposed defendants. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17185 WP No. 109213 of 2025 9. A plain reading of M.E.No.1345 also indicates that the properties are in possession of these five persons on behalf of the “Samasth Mahar Samaj”. Whether the properties belong to community or individuals is a matter that requires trial. Only after evidence is led before the Court can it be conclusively held whether the properties are the exclusive properties of the plaintiffs or whether the proposed defendants have right over it. Under these circumstances, the application to come on record has been rightly allowed. 10. Assuming that the application is to be dismissed on the premise that it will enlarge the scope of the proceedings, the proposed defendants would be at liberty to file a fresh suit claiming rights over the properties. Such a situation has to be avoided. Merely because a dispute relating to the entry in the record of rights is pending before the Deputy Commissioner, the same cannot be a ground to allow the present petition and dismiss the application filed by the proposed defendants. 11. The entry in the proceeding relating to the mutation entries or entries in the record of rights will not decide the rights - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17185 WP No. 109213 of 2025 of the parties. Same has to be decided by the competent Civil Court. 12. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the proposed defendants are necessary parties to the proceeding. However, it is made clear that merely because they are allowed to come on record, it cannot be construed as having said or opined that said persons have right over the properties. Their right, if any, over the properties have to be established by leading evidence. 13. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. 14. All pending applications before the Trial Court shall be considered independently without being influenced by any of the observations made in this petition. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30