- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9485 WP No. 7691 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.7691 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT MUNITAYAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS, 1. SRI MUNEGOWDA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SRI. MANJUNATHA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 2. SMT. ANJINAMMA W/O LATE MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. KUM. PAVANA D/O LATE MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GURADIAN I.E., PETITIONER NO.2. 4. SRI. RAVICHANDRA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT YELUVAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562103 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9485 WP No. 7691 of 2024 AND: 1. SRI A MOHAN S/O LATE N. APPAYYANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI.M. VIKAS S/O MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 3. SRI M. SHREYAS S/O A MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.6, AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, KAVALBYRASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 045. 4. SRI. KEMPANNA S/O LATE MUTHURBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT CHEEMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 129. SMT. NARAYANAMMA SINDE DEAD BY HER LRS 5. SRI BYREGOWDA S/O LATE MUNISHODAPPA AND LATE NARAYANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT YELUVAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 103. 6. SMT. PUTTAMMA D/O LATE MUNISHODAPPA AND LATE NARAYANAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT BEEDAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9485 WP No. 7691 of 2024 7. SRI.R. PILLA KEMPANNA S/O LATE REDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT CHEEMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 129. 8. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, KAVALBYRASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 045. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVA PRASAD.E, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2, R-3 & R-6; R-4, R-5, R-7 ARE SERVED) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 03.02.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2170/2006 BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANHALLI OF ALLOWING THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.XX FILED BY THE R1 TO R3 UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF CPC FOR IMPLEADING THEM AS DEFENDANTS 5 TO 7 (AT ANNEXURE-J) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION- I.A.NO.20. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2170/2006 is directed against the impugned order dated 03.02.2024, whereby the application-I.A.No.XX filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 – impleading applicants under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC was allowed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9485 WP No. 7691 of 2024 by the Trial Court, which permitted the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to be impleaded as additional defendants to the suit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners – plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against respondent Nos.4 to 8 – defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. It is an undisputed fact and matter of record that in the suit there was an interim order passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants restraining all the defendants including defendant No.1 from alienating, encumbering, disposing of or creating third party rights over the suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, when the matter was set down for cross-examination of DW2, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed the instant application seeking impleadment on the ground that the defendant No.1 along with his wife and children had executed a registered Sale Deed dated 31.01.2019 in their - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9485 WP No. 7691 of 2024 favour in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties to the extent of 1 acre 3 guntas situated in Survey No.17/1 of Cheemachanahalli Village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural Taluk. 4. The said application having been opposed / contested by the petitioners herein on various grounds inter alia contending that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were not bona fide purchasers of the suit schedule property as well as the fact that the alleged sale in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 being in the teeth of an order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court, the said Sale Deed was illegal, invalid and void ab initio and as such, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were not entitled to get themselves included in the suit. By the impugned order, the Trial Court took note of the fact that respondent Nos.1 to 3 claimed right over Item No.1 of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered Sale Deed executed during pendency of the suit and as such, they were entitled to come on record as proper and necessary parties to the suit in the light of the provisions contained in Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court reads as under. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9485 WP No. 7691 of 2024 “ORDERS ON I.A.No.XX. The instant application has been filed by the implading applicants U/o.I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C to implead them as parties to the suit. 2. In the affidavit, the applicant No.2 has stated that, the defendant No.1 along with his wife and children has executed Sale Deed dated 31.01.2019 in favour the applicant in respect of Sy.No.17/1 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas, which is the item No.1 of suit schedule properties. The applicants have purchased the said property for valuable sale consideration and they are the bonafide purchasers. The revenue documents have been changed in the names of the impleading applicants. If the application is not allowed, the applicants will be put to great hardship. Hence, prayed to allow the application. 3. The counsel for the LRs of the plaintiff filed objection to the present application by stating that the same is not maintainable under law. It is stated that the applicants have been contending that they have purchased suit item No.1 property through registered Sale Deed dated 31.01.2019. The application is filed only to delay the proceedings. The application is filed in collusion with defendants No.1 and 2. The suit has been filed by original plaintiff Munithayamma for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. It is her contention that after demise of Muthur Basappa, the suit properties devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2. The suit came to be filed on 21.10.2006. Subsequent to service of summons, the defendants No.1 and 2 executed Sale Deed dated 23.02.2007 in favour of one Bhagayamma in respect of suit item No.1 property. The said Bhagyamma is none other than the daughter of brother-in-law of defendant No.1. The said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9485 WP No. 7691 of 2024 Bhagyamma was made as party to the suit. This court has granted interim order not to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of 3rd party against the defendants. During the pendecy of the suit and during the operation of interim order the alienation was made. The impleading applicants are not necessary or proper parties to the suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application with cost. 4. Heard both the sides. 5. The following points would arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the impleading applicants prove that they are either necessary or proper parties to the suit ? 2. What order? 6. My answer to the above points are as follows: Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final Order for the following : R E A S O N S 7. Point No.1: Admittedly, this a suit for Partition and Separate Possession filed by the original plaintiff seeking her 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The suit came to be filed in the year 2006 and the plaintiff impleaded one Bhagyamma as a party to the suit, on the basis of the alleged Sale Deed dated 23.02.2007, executed in her favour by the defendants No.1 and 2. Subsequently, the present application came to be filed by the applicants on the ground that defendant No.1, his wife and children have alienated suit item No.1 property in favour of them. They have been contending that the defendant No.1 has got lawful right to alienate the suit item No.1 property and the impleading - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9485 WP No. 7691 of 2024 applicants are the bonafide purchasers. The application is opposed by the LRs of the plaintiff on the ground that the same is not maintainable under law. In the objection statement is stated that the alienation was made during operation of Temporary Injunction granted by this court etc.,. However, there is no specific reason or ground pleaded as to non maintainability of the present application. It is not specifically denied that the impleading applicants have not purchased the suit item No.1 property as per registered Sale Deed dated 31.01.2019. Moreover, the impleading applicants themselves have produced the copy of Sale Deed dated 31.01.2019, where in it is clearly appearing that the defendant No.1 and others have sold one of the suit properties in favour of the present applicants. The applicants are the parties in whose absence the matter cannot be adjudicated effectively. Accordingly, the applicants have made out grounds to allow the application. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative. 8. Point No.2 : In view of above findings, this court proceed to pass the following: O R D E R I.A. No.XX filed by the implading applicants is hereby allowed. The LRs of the plaintiffs are hereby directed to implead applicants as additional defendants in this suit. For amendment and amended plaint by: 12.03.2024.” 5. A perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record will clearly indicate that though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9485 WP No. 7691 of 2024 respective claims, all rival contentions between the petitioners- plaintiffs, the original defendants and the impleaded defendants including the contention as to whether the Sale Deed in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 was a valid Sale Deed or an invalid Sale Deed would necessarily have to be decided only after a full-fledged trial. Under these circumstances, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 having regard to the provisions contained under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC as held by the Apex Court in the case of H.Anjanappa and others Vs. A. Prabhakar and others – 2025 INSC 121. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present petition in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9485 WP No. 7691 of 2024 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) It is however made clear that all rival contentions between the parties including the contention regarding legality, validity, correctness, etc., of the alleged Sale Deed dated 31.01.2019 alleged to have been executed in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is to be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law and all rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. (iii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to file the written statement and contest the suit. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 3