- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26360 W.P. No.14070/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.14070/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. POOJAPPA S/O KADIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 2. SMT. POOJAMMA W/O M. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/O DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU 560 100. REP. BY THE SPA HOLDER MR. VIJAY KUMAR G S/O SRI. M. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 516 NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU 560 100. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. AKKAYYAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26360 W.P. No.14070/2023 W/O LATE ALLALAPPA R/AT NO.1364, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE DODDTHOGUR VILLAGE ELECTRONIC CITY POST BENGALURU 560 100. 2. SMT. SARASWATHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D/O LATE ALLALAPPA W/O KAVERAPPA R/AT KURUBARAHALLI DENKANIKOTE TALUK DHARMAPURI DISTRICT TAMILNADU PIN 635302. 3. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE ALLALAPPA R/AT NO.1364, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE DODDTHOGUR VILLAGE ELECTRONIC CITY POST BENGALURU 560 100. 4. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O LATE ALLALAPPA W/O ANNADORAI R/AT KURUBARAHALLI DENKANIKOTE TALUK DHARMAPURI DIST TAMILNADU – 635302. 5. ASHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O LATE ALLALAPPA R/AT NO.1364, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE DODDTHOGUR VILLAGE ELECTRONIC CITY POST BENGALURU 560 100. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26360 W.P. No.14070/2023 6. SRI. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE ALLALAPPA R/AT NO.1364, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE DODDTHOGUR VILLAGE ELECTRONIC CITY POST BENGALURU 560 100. 7. SATHYABHAMA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D/O LATE ALLALAPPA R/AT NO.1364, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE ELECTRONIC CITY POST BENGALURU 560 100. 8. SRI. A. RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D/O LATE ALLALAPPA. 9. SRI. V. APPANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA. 10. SRI. V. MARIYAPPA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.8 TO 10 ARE R/O. DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU 560 100. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.A. KARUMBAIAH, ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 25.5.2023 PASSED IN MISC.NO.153/2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26360 W.P. No.14070/2023 RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE COURT BELOW AND AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS SET- ASIDE THE ORDER CONSEQUENTLY ALOW THE MISC NO.153/202 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERSS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.05.2023 passed in Miscellaneous No.153/2022 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.Girish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit in OS.No.1274/2009 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs against the respondents herein. In respect of the very same suit schedule property, respondent Nos.9 and 10 herein have filed OS.No.1140/2016 before the II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for prohibitory - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26360 W.P. No.14070/2023 injunction against the petitioners herein. Hence, the petitioners filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking transfer of OS.No.1140/2016 to the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, which came to be dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the earlier suit filed by the petitioners had been disposed of. It is submitted that the said suit has been restored to file. Therefore, in order to avoid conflicting opinions, it would be appropriate to transfer the suit pending before the II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru to the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.T.A.Karumbaiah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the suit filed by respondent Nos.9 and 10 is one for bare injunction and if the suit is transferred to the Court of the II Additional - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26360 W.P. No.14070/2023 Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, it would unnecessarily delay the proceedings, as the suit of the petitioners is one for declaration seeking to declare the sale deed dated 03.12.1993 executed in favour of respondent Nos.9 and 10 as null and void and such suit itself is not maintainable; hence, there cannot be any conflicting opinions. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioners have filed OS.No.1274/2009 seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 03.12.1993 is null and void along with other consequential reliefs. The said suit is presently pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and the trial in the said suit has commenced. It is to be noticed that respondent Nos.9 and 10 have filed OS.No.1140/2016 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26360 W.P. No.14070/2023 against the petitioners herein for prohibitory injunction, which is pending before the II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. It is further to be noticed that the subject matter in both suits pertains to land bearing Survey No.92/3, measuring 1 acre 19 guntas, including 2 guntas karab land situated at Doddathogur Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru District. The trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) mainly on the ground that the petitioners’ suit in OS.No.1274/2009 had been disposed of. However, it is also to be noticed that the petitioners preferred regular appeal in RA.No.128/2018, which came to be allowed, and the matter was remanded. Consequently, OS.No.1274/2009 stands restored to file and the proceedings in the said suit is at the stage of recording of evidence. 6. In my considered view, when the parties to the proceedings are disputing with regard to the same subject - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26360 W.P. No.14070/2023 matter of the property, the petitioners are seeking declaratory relief concerning the validity of the sale deed dated 03.12.1993, and respondent Nos.9 and 10 are seeking prohibitory injunction against the petitioners in respect of the very same property. In order to avoid conflicting views and to meet the ends of justice, it would be appropriate if both the suits are considered by the same Court. It is made clear that this order is not for clubbing of the suits, but only that they be tried by one Court. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 25.05.2023 passed in Miscellaneous No.153/2022 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. Consequently, Miscellaneous - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26360 W.P. No.14070/2023 No.153/2022 filed by the petitioners under Section 24 of CPC is hereby allowed. iii. Accordingly, the suit in OS.No.1140/2016 from the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is withdrawn and transferred to the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru to be tried by the said Court with OS.No.1274/2019. iv. It is clarified that this transfer is only for the purpose of trial before the same Court and shall not be construed as an order for consolidation of the suits. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14