- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27181 W.P. No.1177/2022 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.1177/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR RAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O P.N. GOPALAKRISHNA RAO. 2. SMT. P.N. VANDANA RAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O PRASANNA KUMAR RAO. BOTH ARE R/AT NO.5 AND 6 SRIKRISHNA AJJARKAD MOODANIDAMBUR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK 576101. 3. SRI. UDAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O B.K. BANGERA R/AT THONDUBETTU KODAVOORU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK 576101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. KALYANI POOJARTHI AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS D/O LATE KALAMALA POOJARTHI R/AT KALYANI NIVAS, KALMADI KODAVOORU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DIST 576 101. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27181 W.P. No.1177/2022 2. SRI. VITTAL POOJARY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS S/O LATE KALAMALA POOJARTHI R/AT KURKAL VILLAGE KAUP TALUK, UDUPI DIST 574 106. 3. SMT. BABY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS D/O LATE KALAMALA POOJARTHI R/AT KALMADI KODAVOORU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT 576101. 4. SMT. SAROJINI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS W/O LATE NARAYANA POOJARY. 5. SRI. HARISH POOJARY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O SAROJINI. 6. SMT. REKHA R. POOJARTHY AGED 49 YEARS D/O SAROJINI. 7. SRI. MADHAV POOJARY AGED 48 YEARS S/O SAROJINI. 8. SRI. KESHAVA POOJARY AGED 47 YEARS S/O SAROJINI. 9. SMT. PRAMEELA POOJARTHI AGED 43 YEARS D/O SAROJINI. 10. SRI. UDAYA POOJARY AGED 38 YEARS S/O SAROJINI. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27181 W.P. No.1177/2022 11. SRI. SANDESH POOJARY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O SAROJINI. RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 11 ARE R/AT SITHARA, V.M. NAGAR 5TH CROSS, KARAMBALLI DODDANGUDDE UDUPI TLAUK 576101. 12. SMT. INDIRA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS D/O LATE KAMALA POOJARTHI R/AT. KAMALA NIVAS KALMADI KODAVOORU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK 76101. 13. SMT. SUMATHI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O LATE KAMALA POOJARTHI PRESENTLY R/AT H.NO. 73 10TH MAIN, 4AD NANDAN COLONY HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU 560 043. 14. SRI. NAVEEN S. KALMADI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O INDIRA POOJARY. 15. SMT. USHA AGED 42 YEARS W/O NAVEEN S. KALMADY RESPONDENT NOS.14 & 15 ARE R/AT KALMADY KODAVOOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT 576101. …RESPONDENTS (R1, R2, R3, R6, R12, R13, R14 AND R15 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:12.03.2026 NOTICE IN R4, R5, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11 ARE H/S AND SERVED) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27181 W.P. No.1177/2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.10.11.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.818/2019 ON IA NO.6 BY 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT UDUPI (ANNEXURE-A) & 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 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 10.11.2021 passed on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.818/2019 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.1 to 11 have filed a suit for partition and separate possession against other respondents herein and in the said suit an application for impleadment was filed, which came to be allowed by the trial Court. It is submitted that the present petitioners, who have been arrayed as defendant Nos.5 to 7, are the bona fide - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27181 W.P. No.1177/2022 purchasers of the property vide registered sale deed dated 11.12.2019 and the dispute is purely between the co-sharers. Hence, the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. The respondents are served but there is no representation on their behalf. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent Nos.1 to 11 have filed the suit against respondent Nos.12 to 15 in O.S.818/2019 for the relief of partition and separate possession on the ground that the suit schedule property is the joint family property and they have right over the same. The property shown in the schedule is claimed to be the joint family property. It is to be noticed that the petitioners have been impleaded before the trial Court on the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 11 - plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the petitioners are the purchasers of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27181 W.P. No.1177/2022 suit schedule property vide registered sale deed dated 11.12.2019. It is to be noticed that in the affidavit accompanying the application it is categorically stated that the purchase of the property by the petitioners herein is after the institution of the suit and during the pendency of the said suit. 6. No doubt the dispute is purely between the co- sharers, however, it is required to be noticed that the plaintiffs have specifically contended before the trial Court that the property is the joint family property and without disclosing and arraying the plaintiffs as parties to the sale deed, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have sold the property in favour of the petitioners herein. Considering the aforesaid assertion of the plaintiffs, I am of the view that the trial Court is fully justified in allowing the application for impleadment. It is to be noticed that though the dispute is between the co-sharers, in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, as the petitioners are presently title holders of the suit schedule property, they are necessary and proper parties to the suit. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits, the same is accordingly rejected. The trial Court shall - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27181 W.P. No.1177/2022 consider early disposal of the suit taking into account the pendency of the matters before it. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24