HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10733 WP No. 13333 of 2022 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 13333 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BOMMANAHALLI RANGE, BEGUR SUB DIVISION, NO.95, DEYOHOTS LAYOUT, 2nd CROSS, BEGUR, BENGALURU 560 035 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SATYANAND B S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR DOMENIC S/O LATE ANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT DODDA BEGUR, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 560 035 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10733 WP No. 13333 of 2022 - 2 - 2. MRS. BHAGYAMMA W/O ABHRAHAM, D/O LATE INGNESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT YELLENAHALLI BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 560 035 3. KANIKYA SWAMY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, 3(a) MRS. SAGAYAMARY, W/O LATE KANIKYA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 4. MR. K. JOHN KUMAR S/O LATE KANIKYA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.773, HOSABEEDI, GOVT HOSPITAL BEGUR, BENGALURU 560 035 5. MR. M. BALAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS, MRS. SALINA MARY, D/O LATE M. BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO. 10, 9th CROSS, CHINNAPPA GARDEN, BENSON TOWN POST, BENGALURU 560 046 6. MRS. LILY PUSHPA D/O LATE M. BALAPPA HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10733 WP No. 13333 of 2022 - 3 - AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO. 22/9, 4th CROSS, S.K GARDEN, BENSON TOWN POST, BENGALURU 560046 7. MRS. MANJULA MARY D/O LATE M. BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT CHINNA MARIYAPPA BUILDING, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, KANAKPURA MAIN ROAD, HAROHALLI, BENGALURU 560 112 8. SRI. ANTHONRAJ S/O LATE M. BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 9. SMT. LORD MARY D/O LATE M. BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 154, 6th CROSS, KANAKADASA LAYOUT, LINGARAJAPUR BENGALURU 560 084 10. SRI. A SHANTARAJ SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS MRS. ANANDA KUMARI, W/O LATE A SHANTHRAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 11. MR. ANTHONY BALARAJ S/O LATE A SHANTHARAJ, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10733 WP No. 13333 of 2022 - 4 - 12. MRS. MARY DEEPLA D/O LATE A SHANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT DODDA BEGUR, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU 560 035 13. BEGUR GRAMA PANCHYATHI BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560 035 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 14. SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE BADAGI MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 15. SRI. RAM MURTHY S/O KATAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT DODDA BEGUR, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU K SOUTH TALUK 560 035 …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 08.07.2022 NOTICE TO R2 TO R15 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT DTD.31.3.2022 IN MISC HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10733 WP No. 13333 of 2022 - 5 - NO.8/2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE MISC PETITION MISC No.8/2021 ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seek to challenge an order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) in Misc.No.8/2021. By the Impugned Order an application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) seeking to transfer the proceedings from the Court of III Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bangalore Rural District to the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bangalore Rural Court at Bangalore has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as was directed on 20.01.2026 the service has been effected on the learned counsel for respondent Mr. G. Narayan on 11.02.2026. The service to R2 to R15 was dispensed with HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10733 WP No. 13333 of 2022 - 6 - by this Court by its Order dated 08.07.2022. Since service was effected to Respondent No.1 on 08.08.2022 already, this Court had directed hand summons to be served to the counsel appearing before the learned Trial Court by order dated 20.01.2026. None appears for the respondents despite the service. Respondents are accordingly proceeded with exparte. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents had originally filed a suit in O.S.No.561/2005 in respect of the suit schedule property against the Gram Panchayat (the predecessor in interest of the petitioner) and this suit was pending before the III Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed a suit against the petitioner in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bengaluru Rural District Bangalore. Both the suits were to be filed in respect of the same suit schedule property. Since the schedule property was the same and the respondents / defendants in the first suit HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10733 WP No. 13333 of 2022 - 7 - were the predecessor of the petitioner, an application was filed under Section 24 of the CPC by the petitioner seeking transfer of the first suit to the Court of the second suit. 4. Learned counsel fairly submits that inadvertently the notification setting out the fact that the Gram Panchayat has been merged into the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) was not placed on record before the learned Trial Court along with the application under Section 24 of the CPC. A hard copy of the same has been handed across to the Court today. Learned counsel submits that since the parties to the suit are same and the relief sought against the Gram Panchayat/BBMP are identical the suit ought to have been transferred. 5. The record reflects that a suit in O.S.No.561/2005 was filed by respondents No.1 to 12 against the Begur Gram Panchayat and one Narayanappa. The suit was filed seeking injunction against defendants from interference with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10733 WP No. 13333 of 2022 - 8 - property. The prayer in the first suit as well as the description of the suit schedule property is set out below: PRAYER a) Restraining the defendants or any persons claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. b) to grant plaintiffs such other relief and further relief’s as this Hon’ble court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of this proceedings, in the interest of justice & equity. SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of Agricultural land bearing Sy.Nos. 364/1, 365 and 367/5 measuring 2.20 acres (both dry and Garden) situated at Begur Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, and bounded on: East by : Burial ground & Honge bande Nagappa’s dry land. West by : Wells and Garden land of Venkatarmanappa North by : Kaluve South by : Wells & passage or way Leading to Syanappanahalli village. 6. Subsequently, a second suit (O.S.No.763/2012) was filed by plaintiff No.3 in the first suit in his individual capacity. The prayer in the suit was also seeking an injunction and the suit schedule property was the same. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10733 WP No. 13333 of 2022 - 9 - The prayer and the schedule of the second suit are extracted below: PRAYER a) Restraining the defendants or any person claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. b) To grant plaintiffs such other relief and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of this proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Sy.Nos. 364/1, 365 and 367/5 measuring 2.20 acres (both dry and Garden) situated at Begur Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, and bounded on: East by : Burial ground & Honge bande Nagappa’s dry land. West by : Wells and Garden land of Venkataramanappa North by : Kaluve South by : Wells & passage or way Leading to Syanappanahalli village. 7. The petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the CPC seeking that the first suit be transferred to the Court of the second suit and both suits to be clubbed together since the prayer is the same and the schedule property is identical in the both suits. Learned Trial Court HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10733 WP No. 13333 of 2022 - 10 - however found that the respondents were same and the parties were all not similar parties and dismissed. 8. The application that has been filed by the petitioner clearly sets out that both suit schedule property is the same and also sets out that as per Government records the property belongs to the Government and has been allotted for the purpose of a burial ground. It is thus been stated that since the suit schedule property is the same and both suits have been filed against the Government, to avoid conflicting judgments the suits need to be clubbed together. 8.1 Paragraphs 6 to 8 of this Application are extracted below: “6. That, the Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are alleging that, the schedule property is their ancestral one. But, per contra the as per the records, schedule property is belongs to the Government and the same has been allotted for the purpose of burial ground, to the public at large. In OS No.763/12, the Respondents No.1 has made the BBMP or the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein as a parties. In another suit bearing OS No.561/2005, the Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 have made the Grampanchayath and other private person as a Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein as a parties. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10733 WP No. 13333 of 2022 - 11 - 7. That, in both suits the pleadings have been completed. In OS No. 561/2005 the Government/Grampanchayath i.e., Respondent No.1 has been placed ex-parte. The Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have filed their common written statement before the Hon’ble Court. The Plaintiff’s have completed their evidence. In both the suits, the evidences of the Defendants are not yet commenced, before the Hon’ble Court. 8. That, the schedule property in both cases are one and the same. The initial suit i.e., OS No.561/2005 is for the Permanent Injunction sought against the Government and other parties. The latter suit is one for the bare Injunction and sought against there Petitioners herein i.e., the BBMP. (OS No.763/12). To suits are pending in different courts and if both the suits have been tried by the Single Court, then it would avoid the conflicting of the Judgments and Decrees. The issues involved in both cases are one and the same. The same would save the Hon’ble Courts and parties time also. Hence, this transfer petition.” [Emphasis supplied] 9. The petitioner has also pointed out that in fact both suits have been filed against the BBMP itself, since now the Begur Grama Panchayath has merged into BBMP in terms of the Notification No. UDD 92 MNY 2006, Bangalore, dated 16.01.2007. The entry number 49 of this Notification sets out that the Begur Grama Panchayat at Begur Village is now included in the area of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, petitioner herein. Given these facts and the fact that the petitioner BBMP states that it is the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10733 WP No. 13333 of 2022 - 12 - owner of this land, it would be necessary that both suits be clubbed and heard together. 10. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner is allowed. The petition is disposed of in the aforegoing terms. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BVK / KS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA