Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17726 (KAR)

SRI C R NAGARAJU v. SRI MRUTHUNJAYA

WP/13629/2026 · 2026-04-27

H T Narendra Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23377 WP No. 13629 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.13629 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. C.R. NAGARAJU S/O. LATE.REVANASIDAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT.NO.608, 68TH CROSS 14TH MAIN KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT BENGALURU-560078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR C. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MRUTHUNJAYA S/O. LATE BASAVARAJAPPA @ BASETTAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.X, 73 GRAIN BAZZAR CITY MARKET BENGALURU-560002. 2. SRI. NATARAJA S/O. LATE T.H.BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS NO.66, 1ST FLOOR, 11TH MAIN 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA NEXT TO KALANJILI BENGALURU-560011. 3. SMT. LAKKAMMA W/O LATE ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23377 WP No. 13629 of 2026 4. SRI. KEMPARAJU S/O. LATE ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 5. SRI. THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 6. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 6 ARE R/AT GANGAPPANAHALLI TAVAREKERE HOBLI THIPPAGONDANAHHALLI POST BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 7. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE CHENNANAJAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S 7(a) SMT. SIDDLINGAMMA W/O LATE CHENNANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS 7(b) SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH S/O LATE CHENNANJAPPA DEAD ON 15-07-2022 HIS LR'S 7(b-i) SMT.NAGARATHANAMMA W/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 7(b-ii) SMT.CHETANKUMAR S/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 7(b-iii) SRI.GANESHA @ CHANNA NANJAPPA, S/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23377 WP No. 13629 of 2026 7(c) SRI.NANJUNDAPPA S/O. LATE CHENNANAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 7(d) SRI. NAGARAJA S/O. LATE CHENNANAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 7(e) SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. LATE.CHENNANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.7(a) TO 7(e) ARE R/AT CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH-562120. 7(f) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS 7(g) SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 7(h) SRI. PRASAD S/O. NANJAPPA42 AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.7(f) TO 7(h) ARE R/AT S.S.PURAM, GOUL EXTENSION TUMAKURU. 7(i) SMT. CHENNAMMA W/O. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS 7(j) SRI. ESWARAPPA S/O. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23377 WP No. 13629 of 2026 7(k) SRI. NANJUNDAPPA S/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 7(l) SRI. NAGARAJ S/O. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.7(i) TO 7(l) ARE R/AT KUVEMPU NAGAR ANNAPOORNESHWARI TEMPLE ROAD TAVAREKERE, BENGALURU SOUTH. 7(m) SRI. RENUKAPPA S/O. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 7(n) SRI. MAHESH KUMAR S/O. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 7(o) SRI. SHANMUKAPPA S/O. SHIVANNA AGED AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.7(m) TO 7(o) ARE RESIDING AT CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. 7(p) SMT. GANGAMBIKE W/O.SADASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS 7(q) SRI.NAGARAJ S/O.SADASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.7(p) AND 7(q) ARE RESIDING AT CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23377 WP No. 13629 of 2026 TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. 8. RENUKA K.S. S/O.LATE.SHIVARUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS NO.199, LINGAYATH STREET KENGERI, KENGERI POST BENGALURU-560060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.HAMSA G, ADVOCATE FOR C/R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING ORDER ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE IN R.A.NO.11/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.11.2025 ON IA NO.16 AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner-plaintiff has called in question the order dated 10.12.2025 passed on I.A.No.XVI by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Spl. Judge, Ramanagara (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ for short) in R.A.No.11/2016, whereby the said application filed by respondent No.8 herein under - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23377 WP No. 13629 of 2026 Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking impleadment has been allowed. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration in O.S.No.171/2014 (Old No.386/2008). The said suit came to be dismissed by judgment dated 18.12.2015. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.11/2016. During the pendency of the proceedings, defendant No.7-Gowramma died, and her legal representatives have been brought on record. Respondent No.8 herein (Renuka K.S.) filed I.A.No.XVI seeking impleadment, contending that Gawramma had executed a Will dated 13.01.2016 in her favour, and that she also obtained a succession certificate in P&SC No.05/2022. The First Appellate Court, by impugned order, allowed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. On perusal of the records, it is seen that respondent No.8 claims right over the subject property on the basis of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23377 WP No. 13629 of 2026 the Will executed by Gowramma and the succession certificate obtained by her. Therefore, her presence is necessary for proper and complete adjudication of the dispute involved in the appeal. 4. The First Appellate Court, having considered the aforesaid aspects, has allowed the said application for impleadment, as the presence of respondent No.8 is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. 5. This Court finds no error or illegality in the order passed by the First Appellate Court, as impleadment would help in deciding the matter effectively and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57