- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31362 W.P. No.3765/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3765/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA W/O A. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT. DINNUR VILLAGE SILK FARM QUARTERS HOSUR POST AND TALUK TAMIL NADU-635109. 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO.4/A, H C F POST POONAPAPALLI VILLAGE KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-635109. 3. SMT. NANJAMMA W/O CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A NO.4/A, H C F POST KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-635109. 4. SMT. YELLAMMA W/O SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NO.G-1230, 9TH CROSS NEW CENTRAL TOWNSHIP MARATHAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560037. …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31362 W.P. No.3765/2021 (BY SRI. S. SRIVATSA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. FREUD RICHARDSON AND SMT. HARSHITHA KADAM, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. DEEPA W/O LATE G. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.538, 31ST MAIN, IST CROSS BANAGIRINAGARA BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560085. 2. SRI. BHARATH .C S/O LATE G. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/A NO.538, 31ST MAIN IST CROSS, BANAGIRINAGARA BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560085. 3. SMT. BINDUSHREE D/O LATE G. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED MAJOR R/A NO.538, 31ST MAIN, IST CROSS BANAGIRINAGARA BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560085. 4. SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA S/O DODDA KULLAPPA AGED MAJOR R/A MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE MUTHANALLUR POST SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 5. SRI. VENKATARAYAPPA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31362 W.P. No.3765/2021 S/O DODDA KULLAPPA AGED MAJOR R/A MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE MUTHANALLUR POST SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 6. SHANKARANARAYANA REDDY S/O V.S. THIMMAREDDY MAJOR R/A VANGALAHALLI VILLAGE H S R LAYOUT, AGARA POST BENGALURU-560034. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R5 ARE SD AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:06.09.2021, NOTICE TO R6 IS H/S) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET SIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 23.2.2018 IN M.A NO.183/2012 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (RURAL) BANGALORE AT ANEKAL (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 23.02.2018 passed in MA.No.183/2012 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District sitting at Anekal (for short ‘the trial Court’). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31362 W.P. No.3765/2021 2. Heard Sri.S.Srivatsa, learned senior counsel for Sri.Freud Richardson and Smt.Harshitha Kadam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. There is no representation of the respondents. 4. The petitioners filed OS.No.1120/2004 seeking the relief of partition against defendant Nos.1 to 4. The suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2007 (New number is OS.No.878/2006). It is to be noticed that in the said suit, defendant Nos.3 and 4 were purchasers of portion of the suit schedule property from defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is further to be noticed that defendant No.4 filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to set aside the exparte judgment and decree passed in OS.No.878/2006, on the ground that he was a purchaser of a portion of the suit property from defendant Nos.1 and 2 and that he had been placed exparte as no summons was served on him. The said petition is numbered as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31362 W.P. No.3765/2021 Misc.No.28/2008 and the same came to be dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal vide order dated 06.11.2012. Aggrieved by the said order, the LRs of deceased defendant No.4 preferred MA.No.183/2012 before the District Court. The Appellate Court vide order dated 23.02.2018 set aside the order dated 06.11.2012 passed in Misc.No.28/2008 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal and consequently, allowed the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. As a result, the judgment and decree in OS.No.878/2006 was set aside on the ground that, after transfer of the suit from the Court at Bengaluru to the Court at Anekal, summons had not been served on defendant No.4. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs has pointed out the order dated 30.05.2005 from the order sheet of original suit, which indicates that defendant No.4 had been duly served. He also pointed out that one Sri.Satish V. Nayak, Advocate, had filed vakalath on behalf of defendant No.4. Be that as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31362 W.P. No.3765/2021 it may, the suit in OS.No.1120/2004 was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division and JMFC, Anekal and the said suit was re-numbered as OS.No.878/2006. It is not in dispute that after transferring the suit to the Civil Judge, Senior Division and JMFC, Anekal, notice was issued to defendant Nos.1 and 2. However, no notice was issued to defendant Nos.3 and 4, as they had already been placed exparte and had not contested the proceedings. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners upon seeking instructions from the instructing counsel and the petitioners, submits that defendant No.4 being the purchaser of the portion of the suit schedule property, LRs of the deceased defendant No.4 can be impleaded in FDP proceedings to be initiated by the plaintiffs and that their interest would be protected as they are third party to the partition suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31362 W.P. No.3765/2021 7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and keeping in mind the interest of defendant No.4, who, though served in the present proceedings, remains unrepresented, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed instead of directing the trial Court once again to conduct a de novo enquiry in a suit for partition as defendant No.4 was admittedly a purchaser of the suit property, and the interest of the LRs of deceased defendant No.4 can be protected by permitting them to be impleaded in the FDP proceedings which is to be initiated by the petitioners/plaintiffs. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 23.02.2018 passed in MA.No.183/2012 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District sitting at Anekal is hereby set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31362 W.P. No.3765/2021 iii. The petitioners shall implead the LRs of deceased defendant No.4 in the final decree proceedings which is yet to be initiated by them and the FDP Court shall consider the contentions of the LRs of deceased defendant No.4/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and to work out the equities. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0