- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46995 WP No. 26835 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 26835 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 2. SANAPPA S/O LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 3. JAVARAPPA S/O LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 4. RAMESH S/O LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 4. NAGESH S/O LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT KAMMARAHALLI VILLAGE ILAVALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 012. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI KUMARA K.G, ADV.) AND: 1. RAMAIAH S/O LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT KAMMARAHALLI VILLAGE ILAVALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 012. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46995 WP No. 26835 of 2023 2. CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O LATE N NARASAIAH AGED 56 YEARS. 3. N.C. RAJU S/O LATE N NARASAIAH AGED 41 YEARS. 4. N.C. HEMACHANDRA S/O LATE N NARASAIAH AGED 39 YEARS. 5. N.C. ANITHA S/O LATE N NARASAIAH AGED 35 YEARS. 6. PRAKASH S/O LATE N NARASAIAH AGED 55 YEARS. 7. LAKSHMAMMA W/O PRAKASH N AGED 44 YEARS. 8. RAJESH P.N S/O PRAKASH AGED 28 YEARS. 9. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O PRAKASH N AGED 26 YEARS. 10. SUNITHA KUMARI B S/O PRAKASH AGED 21 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 2ND CROSS PADUVARAHALLI VINAYAKANAGARA MYSURU - 570 007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PAVAN KUMAR Y.N, ADV., FOR R-1; SRI VRATHIK N.K, ADV., FOR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46995 WP No. 26835 of 2023 SRI Y.K. NARAYANASHARMA, ADV., FOR R-2 TO R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 11.09.2023 PASSED BY THE XIII ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU IN O.S.NO.1459/2019 AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 11.09.2023 passed on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.1459 of 2019 by the Court of XIII Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Respondent no.1 herein has filed O.S.No.1459 of 2019 before the jurisdictional civil Court at Mysuru seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Respondent nos.2 to 10 herein are the defendants in the said suit. The original defendants have filed written statement in O.S.No.1459 of 2019 and they have contested the suit claim. I.A.No.III was filed on behalf of the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC with a prayer to implead them - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46995 WP No. 26835 of 2023 as party defendants to the suit in O.S.No.1459 of 2019. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff as well as by the original defendants in O.S.No.1459 of 2019 and the trial Court vide the order impugned has dismissed I.A.No.III. Being aggrieved, the applicants in I.A.No.III are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Item No.2 of the suit schedule property belongs to the petitioners herein. The plaintiff and defendants in O.S.No.1459 of 2019 have no right, title or interest over the said property and the said property is not the joint family property or ancestral property of the parties to the suit in O.S.No.1459 of 2019. The trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in rejecting I.A.No.III. 5. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents submit that petitioners are not the family members of the parties to the suit in O.S.No.1459 of 2019. Petitioners claim independent right over Item No.2 of the suit schedule property and if that is so, it is for them to seek appropriate relief before the proper forum and they cannot be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46995 WP No. 26835 of 2023 said to be either necessary or proper party in the present suit. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perusal of the material on the Court would go to show that undisputedly the petitioners are not the family members of either the plaintiff or the defendants in O.S.No.1459 of 2019. Petitioners are not even relatives of the parties to the suit in O.S No.1459 of 2019. According to the petitioners, they are the absolute owners in possession of Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.1459 of 2019 and the said property has been wrongly included in the schedule to the plaint in O.S.No.1459 of 2019, though the said property is not the joint family property or ancestral property of the parties to the suit in O.S.No.1459 of 2019. If that is so, it is for the petitioners to approach the proper forum and initiate appropriate proceedings to protect their right over the said property. Petitioners cannot be said to be either necessary or proper parties for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute involved in the present suit, wherein a prayer is made for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46995 WP No. 26835 of 2023 Court was fully justified in rejecting I.A.No.III. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain the petition. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16