- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29319 W.P. No.12110/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.12110/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. DALINARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE DHALAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O OBALAPURA VILLAGE I.D. HALLI HOBLI 572127 MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADV.,) AND: 1. LAKSHMINARASAPPA DEAD BY LRS. SRI. L. NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O OBALAPURA VILLAGE I.D. HALLI HOBLI 572127 MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT. LAXMAMMA W/O GANGAPPA D/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAPPA R/O CHOLASAMUDRAM HINDUPURA TALUK ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT A P STATE. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29319 W.P. No.12110/2021 3. SMT. PAPAMMA D/O DALAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O THADI POST, I.D. HALLI HOBLI 572127 MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 4. SRI. S. ANJANAPPA DEAD BY LRS. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE S. ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 5. SRI. KUMARASWAMY S/O LATE S. ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS. 6. NANDINI D/O LATE S. ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS. 7. SRI. GIRISH S/O LATE S. ANJINAPPA MINOR, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS. R-7 IS MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE S. ANJINAPPA. 8. SMT. SHYLAJA W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 9. SRI. PRADEEPA S/O SRIRANAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. 8 & 9 ARE GRAND CHILDREN OF DECEASED S. ANJINAPPA THROUGH HIS PRE DECEASED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29319 W.P. No.12110/2021 DAUGHTER SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O SRIRAMAPPA. 10. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA D/O LATE S. ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 4 TO 10 ARE R/O OBALAPURA VILLAGE I.D. HALLI HOBLI 572127 MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. 11. SUNANDAMMA DEAD BY LRS. SRI. ASHWATHAPPA S/O ANJINAPPA H/O LATE SUNANDAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 12. SRI. NANDEESH S/O LATE SUNANDAMMA MINOR, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI ASHWATHAPPA S/O ANJINAPPA. 11 AND 12 ARE R/O YARAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. 13. SRIRAMAPPA S/O LATE SAJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O OBALAPURA VILLAGE I.D. HALLI HOBLI 572127 MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29319 W.P. No.12110/2021 14. SAJJAIAH, DEAD BY LRS. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O ASHWATHAPPA D/O LATE SAJJAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O KERAGULAHALLI, PARAGI MANGAL MODA PANCHAYATH, HINDUPUR TALUK ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 15. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 16. SAJJAKKA W/O GANGAPPA D/O LATE SAJJAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O YARAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 17. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O NARASIMHAPPA D/O LATE SAJJAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O HINDUPUR MANDAL ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. 18. SMT. NARASAKKA W/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. LR’S NO.15 AND 18 ARE R/O OBALAPURA VILLAGE I.D,.HALLI HOBLI 572127 MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29319 W.P. No.12110/2021 19. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O NEERAGANTI HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 20. SRI. DODDANARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE KADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 19 AND 20 ARE R/O OBALAPURA VILLAGE I.D. HALLI HOBLI 572127 MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 21. SMT. SAJJAMMA W/O UPPARA GANGAPPA R/O BOMMENAHALLI, KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 22. NEERAGANTI HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMANTHAPPA R/O OBALAPURA, I D HALLI HOBLI 572127 MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 23. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE C.N. NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 24. SRI. S. NAGARAJU S/O LATE C.N. NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 25. SRI. ANANDA S/O LATE C.N. NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 26. SMT. THIPPAMMA - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29319 W.P. No.12110/2021 D/O LATE C.N. NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 27. SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE C.N. NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. 22 TO 26 ARE R/O OBALAPURA I.D. HALLI HOBLI 572127 MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. SATHEESH, ADV., FOR R-23 TO R-27 [ABSENT] V/O/DTD:09.08.2021, NOTICE TO R1 TO R22 ARE D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 05.04.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI IN FDP NO.2/2016 ON I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC VIDE ANNX-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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29319 W.P. No.12110/2021 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 05.04.2021 passed on I.A.No.4 in FDP No.2/2016 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Madhugiri, (for short, ‘the FDP Court’). 2. Sri.G.S.Venkat Subba Rao., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that petitioner has filed a suit for partition which came to be decreed. Later in appeal, it was modified. Thereafter, the petitioner initiated FDP proceedings and in the said FDP proceedings, respondent Nos.23 to 27 – applicants have filed an application under Order XX Rule 18 read with Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to implead themselves as parties in the FDP proceedings, which came to be allowed by the FDP Court. It is submitted that the reasoning of the FDP Court while impleading is solely based on Exs.P6 and P7 alleged two agreements referred in the order. The said agreement has no evidentiary value and they do not indicate any transfer of property or division of share nor does it confer any right over the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that the FDP - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29319 W.P. No.12110/2021 Court, though conducted the inquiry, proceeded to allow the application for impleadment solely on the basis of Exs.P6 and P7 and the oral evidence. It is also submitted that the applicants have failed to establish that they have a right and interest over the suit schedule property and as per the agreement also the property referred is something different than the suit schedule property. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.66/2004 for relief of partition and separate possession of different properties and to declare the decree passed in O.S.No.176/2003 in respect of item No.2 as the suit property is not binding on his share and it is null and void. The said suit came to be decreed on 17.12.2014. The records indicate that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29319 W.P. No.12110/2021 the petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the said judgment and decree before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5001/2015 and the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.66/2004 dated 17.12.2014 by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in suit Item Nos.3 and 4 as well as 1/3rd share in western 1 acre 13 guntas in suit Item No.2 property and further 1/3rd share in the suit Item No.1 after excluding 30 guntas sold under Exs.D16 and 21 and also the areas sold under the sale deed at Exs.D12, D17, D19 and D24. The petitioner has initiated the final decree proceedings in FDP No.2/2016 and in the said proceedings the respondent Nos.23 to 27 have filed an application under Order XX Rule 18 read with Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking for impleadment. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing objections and after conducting inquiry, the FDP Court under the impugned order allowed the said application. 6. It is to be noticed that the applicants i.e., respondent Nos.23 to 27, have primarily contended that they belonged to the branch of Chikka Narasimahappa and without - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29319 W.P. No.12110/2021 arraying them as parties the suit for partition was decreed and in support of their contention, they have adduced oral evidence as well as produced the documentary evidence as per Exs.P1 to P7. The FDP Court mainly relying on Exs.P6 and P7, the alleged agreements, has allowed them to come on record. It is to be noticed that a perusal of Exs.P6 and P7 indicate that there is the alleged agreement between the petitioner along with his brother and C.N.Narasimhappa pertaining to Sy.No.84/12. It is to be noticed that the suit schedule property is a different survey number and not Sy.No.84/12. It is to be noticed that the applicants i.e., respondent Nos.23 to 27 have failed to establish that the aforesaid agreements at Exs.P6 and P7 are pertaining to the suit schedule property and in the absence of such evidence, in my considered view, placing reliance on Exs.P6 and P7 by the FDP Court and permitting the applicants to come on record is uncalled for. It is also to be noticed that Exs.P6 and P7 do not confer any right nor it creates any right in favour of the applicants or takes away the right of the original plaintiff. It is to be noticed that the said agreements do not create or take away the right of the parties. Hence, merely a reference of some names in the agreement cannot be a ground - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29319 W.P. No.12110/2021 to come to conclusion that the applicants i.e., respondent Nos.23 to 27, are the necessary and proper parties in the proceedings initiated by the original plaintiff for drawing up of the final decree. 7. It is needless to observe that if the applicants i.e., respondent Nos.23 to 27, have any right over the suit schedule property, it is always open for them to establish the said right by filing an appropriate suit. 8. With the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 05.04.2021 passed on I.A.No.4 in FDP No.2/2016 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Madugiri, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.4 filed by the respondent Nos.23 to 27 is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25