- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8968 WP No. 30546 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 30546 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B. LETHIF, S/O. ADAM KUNHI P., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT: NO. 52, 2ND CROSS, RANKA NAGAR, KAVALBYRASANDRA, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 032. AADHAAR NO. 9836 7678 7543 2. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O. LATE MALLIKARJUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO. 162, 5TH CROSS, NEAR NOTARY SCHOOL, RAJENDRANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201 AADHAAR NO. 6780 5852 6746 3. SMT. KOWSALYA PRASAD W/O. SRI. A. P. GURUPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO. 52, SRI. ANNAPURNESHWARI NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, JUDICIAL OFFICERS LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR, RMV EXTENSION, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 094. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. S. CHANDRAHASA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8968 WP No. 30546 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT: JAKKUM, MUNESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064. 2. SMT. RUPA W/O. NARASIMHA RAJU, D/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT HAROHALLI POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, VIJIPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE RURAL TALUK, BENGALURU – 562 110 3. SMT. RENUKA W/O. SRI. SOMAPRAKASH, D/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT TALAGAVARA POST, NEAR KAIWARA, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563 125 4. SMT. MAMATHA W/O. NAGARAJA REDDY, D/O. LATE NARASIMAHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 27/1, TAMMAIAH BUILDING, II FLOOR, NEAR IMPACT COLLEGE, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 092. 5. SRI. N. NAGARAJU S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT JAKKUM, MUNESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 064. 6. THE COMMISSIONER BDA, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8968 WP No. 30546 of 2025 7. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. LATE VENKATASWAMY, MAJOR, R/AT: DASARAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGARAPETE TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/04/2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.5054/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-2). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the proposed defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 in O.S.No.5054/2017 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.5 by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said application filed by the plaintiffs to implead the petitioners as additional Defendant Nos.3 to 5 was allowed by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8968 WP No. 30546 of 2025 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against respondent Nos.5 and 6 - defendant Nos.1 and 2 for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking impleadment of the petitioners -proposed defendants on the ground that they had purchased part of suit schedule property from defendant No.1 and as such, the petitioners were both proper and necessary parties to the suit. The said application having been opposed by the petitioners, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under: ORDER ON IA No.5 Advocate for the plaintiffs filed IA No.5 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Sec.151 of CPC with prayer to implead the proposed defendants as defendant Nos.3 to 6. 2. In the affidavit supporting IA, it is contended that, deceased Narasimhaiah was the Kartha of the joint family, who died on 14.06.2010 leaving behind one son i.e., defendant No.1 and 3 daughters and wife i.e., plaintiffs. Suit schedule item Nos.1 and 2 properties bearing Sy.No.52/1 measuring 8 guntas and Sy.No.74/7 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8968 WP No. 30546 of 2025 measuring 9 ½ guntas of Jakkur Village were acquired by the BDA for the purpose of formation of Arkavathi Layout, under the 60:40 developmental scheme, the defendant No.1 has got registered two sites on 04.05.2017 i.e., site No.119 formed in Sy.No.90/4 of Jakkuru Village and site No.222 in Sy.No.90/4 of Jakkuru Village. In fact, defendant No.1 has no individual rights over the above said 40% developmental area allotted by the BDA in the place of acquired lands of the family of Late J.M.Narasimhaiah. In the said sites, these plaintiffs are also having equal right. 2a) The defendant No.1 has sold Site No.119 in favour of B.Lethif on 11.10.2017. Thereafter, said B.Lethif had sold the said site No.119 in favour of S.M.Shanthamma. Thereafter, said S.M.Shanthamma has gifted the said site in favour of her daughter Kowsalya Prasad. These B.Lethif, S.M.Shanthamma and Kowsalya Prasad are the proposed defendant Nos.3, 4 & 5. On 31.05.2017, the defendant No.1 has sold site No.222 in favour of Narayanaswamy i.e., proposed defendant No.6 under the registered sale deed. These plaintiffs are also having equal rights in the said sites, hence, the proposed defendant Nos.3 to 6 are necessary parties for adjudication of this case, hence, prayed to allow the IA. 3. On service of notice on this IA, proposed defendant No.1 filed his objections. The proposed defendant No.3 filed objections, which is adopted by the proposed defendant No.2. The gist of the objections is that, the plaintiffs have filed this suit for partition claiming - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8968 WP No. 30546 of 2025 their 1/5th share each and mesne profits in respect of suit schedule A to H properties. The proposed defendants are nowhere related or concerned to the suit schedule properties mentioned in the plaint. The proposed defendant No.3 contended that, Sy.No.74/7 of Jakkur Village was totally measuring 29 guntas was belonged to Nanjundappa. Pursuant to the death of Nanjundappa, his two sons namely Muniswamappa i.e., Doddamuniswamappa and Chikkamuniswamappa got partitioned the said property on 17.06.1959. Under the partition deed, 14 guntas of land in Sy.No.74/7 was fallen to the share of Doddamuniswamappa, who executed the registered Will dated 06.06.1992 bequeathing 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.74/7 in favour of defendant No.1 and remaining extent of 8 guntas in Sy.No.74/7 is shown as 9 guntas in suit schedule B property of the plaint. The BDA has registered the sale deed in respect of Site No.119 in Sy.No.90/4 of Jakkur Village, as a compensation with regard to the acquisition of said 5 guntas of land from the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 was the absolute owner and in possession of site No.119, who sold the same in favour of Lathif i.e., proposed defendant No.1 under the sale deed dated 11.10.2017. The proposed defendant No.1 in turn has sold the said site in favour of proposed defendant No.2. Proposed defendant No.2 gifted the said site in favour of proposed defendant No.3. There was partitoin on 17.06.1959 between Doddamuniswamappa and Chikkamuniswamappa, hence, there was no joint family property. The plaintiffs are barred - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8968 WP No. 30546 of 2025 from challenging the said documents under the law of limitation. On these grounds, the proposed defendants pray to dismiss the application. 4. Heard arguments. Perused the materials on record. 5. Now the points that arise for my consideration are as follows :- 1. Whether I.A.No.5 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Sec.151 of CPC, deserves to be allowed ? 2. What Order ? 6. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : As per the final order; for the following: REASONS 7. POINT No.1:- The plaintiffs who are the sisters and mother of the defendant No.1 have filed this suit for partition claiming 1/5th share each in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule-A property is Sy.No.52/1 measuring 8 guntas of Jakkur Village and suit schedule-B property is Sy.No.74/7 measuring 9 ½ guntas of Jakkur Village. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, said two lands i.e., suit schedule A and B properties were acquired by the BDA for formation of Arkavathi Layout and as a compensation for acquisition of the said land, on 60:40 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8968 WP No. 30546 of 2025 ratio, the BDA has registered site No.119 of Sy.No.90/4 and site No.222 in Sy.No.90/4 of Jakkur Village in the name of the defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, said suit schedule A and B properties belonged to the joint family were acquired by the BDA and towards compensation, sites have been registered in the name of the defendant No.1. Hence, the plaintiffs are also having share in the said sites, which were sold by the defendant No.1 in favour of proposed defendant Nos.1 and 4. 8. In the objections, the proposed defendant Nos.1 to 3 have contended that, there was a partition in the year 1959 between Doddamuniswamappa and Chikkamuniswamappa. Doddamuniswamappa executed the registered Will dated 06.06.1992 bequeathing 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.74/7 of Jakkur Village in favour of his grandson i.e., defendant No.1, hence, said 5 guntas of land was the self-acquired property of defendant No.1, hence, the site sold by the defendant No.1 was his self- acquired property, in which, these plaintiffs cannot claim any share, hence, prayed to reject the IA. 9. Looking to the materials produced, facts and circumstances of the case, these site Nos.119 and 222 were registered in the name of defendant No.1 by the BDA as a compensation towards acquisition of the suit schedule A and B properties. Whether it is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 or it is the joint family property can be decided only after full pledged trial. It is the basic principle of law that, whenever the property is made as subject - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8968 WP No. 30546 of 2025 matter of the suit, the persons, in whose name the property is standing, are to be given an opportunity of hearing before passing any orders concerning the said property. In this case, site No.119 was sold by the defendant No.1 in favour of proposed defendant No.1, who in turn sold the same in favour of proposed defendant No.2, who gifted the same in favour of proposed defendant No.3. Site No.222 was sold by defendant No.1 in favour of proposed defendant No.4. At the time of adjudicating regarding the said site Nos.119 and 222 as to whether these properties are the joint family properties or whether these properties to be given to the share of the defendant No.1 are to be adjudicated only after trial. In the absence of these proposed defendant Nos.1 to 4, these things cannot be adjudicated. Hence, the proposed defendants are necessary parties to this case to defend their rights in respect of their properties. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 is in the Affirmative. 10. POINT No.2 :- In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following :- O R D E R I.A.No.5 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Sec.151 of CPC, is allowed. The proposed defendant Nos.1 to 4 are impleaded as defendant Nos.3 to 6. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8968 WP No. 30546 of 2025 4. As can be seen from the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the trial Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the rival contentions and has come to the correct conclusion that the question as to whether the petitioners purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.1, the question as to whether the suit schedule property was the separate and self-acquired property of defendant No.1 or a joint family property and all other issues in this regard would necessarily have to be decided only after a full-fledged trial and not at the stage of considering an application for impleadment of the petitioners as additional defendants. It is also pertinent to note that though the petitioners contend that the property purchased by them from defendant No.1 is different from the suit schedule property and even this question/issue would also require adjudication only after a full-fledged trial and not while considering an application for impleadment of the petitioners. 5. In fact, having regard to the undisputed fact that defendant No.1 has executed sale deeds in favour of petitioners No.1, who in turn sold the property in favour of petitioner No.2, who in turn had gifted it to petitioner No.3, all rival contentions between - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8968 WP No. 30546 of 2025 the petitioners and the parties to the suit would necessarily have to be decided after permitting both parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in this regard. 6. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its 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 Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8968 WP No. 30546 of 2025 ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to file additional written statement to the suit and contest the suit by taking up all defences available in law. iii) All rival contentions between the petitioners and parties on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6