- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27081 W.P. No.4304/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.4304/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O SOMAGUDDU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA -577522. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. C.H. THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE HANUMANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O. SOMAGUDDU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 2. SMT. PRAMEELAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O. BELAGERE VILLAGE P.R. PURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27081 W.P. No.4304/2022 3. SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O LATE DYAMANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 4. SRI. MANJANNA S/O LATE DYAMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 R/O. SOMAGUDDU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 5. THE TAHSILDAR CHALLAKERE TALUK CHALLAKERE CHITRADURG DISTRICT-577522. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.K. SREEHARSHA, ADV., FOR SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N, ADV., FOR R1 SMT. AZRA J. DUNGE, AGA FOR R5 R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON I.ANO.5 IN O.S.NO.90/2020 DATED 17.1.2022 BY THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27081 W.P. No.4304/2022 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.01.2022 passed on IA.No.5 in OS.No.90/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.B.M.Siddappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is defendant No.1 in a suit filed by respondent No.1 seeking the reliefs of declaration and injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner has raised a counterclaim seeking declaration and injunction. The respondent No.1 filed an application seeking the framing of an additional issue, which came to be allowed by the trial Court. The sought additional issue relates to the alleged relationship between the petitioner/defendant No.1 and Smt.Ramakka and the burden has been casted on her. It is submitted that in a suit for declaration and injunction, the question of relationship does not arise as the parties have to prove their respective rights over the property and, in the case - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27081 W.P. No.4304/2022 of injunction, lawful possession. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.A.K.Sreeharsha, learned counsel for Sri.Spoorthy Hegde N., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt.Azra J Dunge, learned AGA support the impugned order of the trial Court and seek to dismiss the writ petition. 4. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent No.1 has filed OS.No.90/2020 seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and also sought injunction against the defendants in the said suit. The petitioner herein has raised the counterclaim seeking declaration as well as injunction against respondent No.1/plaintiff. Thereafter, respondent No.1 herein filed IA.No.5 under Order XIV Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking the framing of an additional issue. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27081 W.P. No.4304/2022 The trial Court has allowed the said application under the impugned order. It is to be noticed that the petitioner/defendant No.1 had specifically contended before the trial Court that she is the daughter of one Smt.Ramakka and the said assertion was categorically denied by respondent No.1/plaintiff. In view of the said dispute, the trial Court held that, for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy, proceeded to allow the application by framing the issue as to “whether defendant No.1 proves that she is the daughter of Ramakka wife of Kadajjagala Siddappa as alleged in para No.13(A) of the counter claim?”. In my considered view, the trial Court, by a well-reasoned order, has rightly allowed the application. The same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32