- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51748 WP No. 3856 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 3856 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT.S.B.NAGAVENI W/O TYAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O KATRI GUPPE, VIVEKANANDA NAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.S.B.MAHALINGAPPA S/O SANNA BANADA BANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 2. SRI S.B.SANJAYA S/O SANNA BANADA BANAPPA, AGED 51 YEARS, 3. SRI. S.B.VRUSHABHENDRAPPA S/O SANNA BANADA BANNAPPA, AGED 54 ABOUT YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 4. SRI S.B.YOGESH S/O SANNA BANADA BANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51748 WP No. 3856 of 2023 RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF KAPARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522. 5. SMT. S.B.MANJAMMA W/O KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MEERASABIHALLY VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK – 577 522. 6. SMT. P.PUTTALINGAPPA W/O RAGHUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MEERASABIHALLI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522. 7. SRI.H.GIRISH BABU S/O H.HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MOGALAHALLI VILLAGE, KONDLA HALLI POST, MOLKALMUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 535. 8. M/S. AZURE PHOTOVOLTAGE PVT LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI. GEORGE VALAMCHERY S/O LATE AUSEPH VALAMCHERY, NO.8, L.S.C., MADANGIR, PUSH VIHAR, NEW DELHI – 110 062. 9. SRI. NATARAJ S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, BARAGURU VILLAGE, HULIKUNTE HOBLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51748 WP No. 3856 of 2023 SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 113. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:25.01.2024) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE IN OS NO.76/2015 ON IA NO.VI DATED 16/01/2023 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order on I.A.VI dated 16.01.2023 in O.S.No.76/2015 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, learned Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC and has directed that defendant Nos.8 & 9 before the Trial Court are neither necessary nor proper parties. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51748 WP No. 3856 of 2023 2. The matter was listed before this Court on 11.11.2025 when the petitioner/plaintiff’s Counsel sought some time to place some documents and at his request, the matter was adjourned to 05.12.2025. However, despite the lapse of four weeks from the said date, no documents have been placed on record. 3. There is no presence on behalf of the respondents despite service. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff makes one submission. He submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have sold the suit schedule properties to the proposed defendants No.8 and 9 and thus, they are necessary parties to the present petition. This contention was also made by the petitioner/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court after examining the pleadings of the parties found that the suit that has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for partition and separate possession - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51748 WP No. 3856 of 2023 and declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.7 is valid and binding. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff again reiterates his contention that the property, after filing the suit has been sold once again. Concededly, the petitioner/plaintiff has not amended his plaint to bring these new facts on record nor has taken steps to file the proceedings to challenge this violation. 6. As stated above, the plaint as filed is for partition and separate possession and declaration qua the ancestral properties of the petitioner/plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6. It is apposite to extract the prayers in the plaint which reads as follows: “a. For declaration to declare that the suit schedule properties No.1 to 5 are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 6. b. For partition and separate possession of 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds to the plaintiff under due process of law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51748 WP No. 3856 of 2023 c. To declare-* that the sale deed executed by the defendant No.4 inf avour of defendant No.7, is void abinitio and not binding upon the plaintiff. d. For court costs and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant to the plaintiffs in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 7. In view of the pleadings before the Trial Court and the undisputed contentions, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Liberty is however granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to take appropriate steps before the Trial Court for redressal of her grievances, albeit in accordance with law. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA