- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32411 W.P. No.1381/2021 C/W W.P. No.3656/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1381/2021 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.3656/2021 (GM-CPC) IN W.P. No.1381/2021: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O H. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS HOUSEWIFE R/O ODDINAKOPPA VILLAGE NIDIGE HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DISTRICT 577201. 2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O HOSKOPPA VILLAGE HOLEHONNUR HOBLI BHADRAVATH TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577103. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. R. RUDRAPPA S/O LATE T. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32411 W.P. No.1381/2021 C/W W.P. No.3656/2021 2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O R. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 3. SMT. YOGITHASHREE R W/O K. HONNESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HOUSEWIFE. 4. KUM. MADURA .H D/O K. HONNESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS. 5. KUM. MANASA .H D/O K. HONNESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS. 4 & 5 ARE SINCE MINOR REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. YOGITHASHREE R. 1 TO 5 ARE R/O ODDINAKOPPA VILLAGE N.R. PURA ROAD SHIVAMOGGA 577201. 6. SRI. K.V. SWAMY DEAD. SRI. K.V. JAIRAJ S/O LATE K.V. SWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A RADHAKRISHNA NILAYA APMC, OPP. KALLESHWARA EXTENSION HOSADURGA TOWN 577527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 7. SRI. C.R. SWAMY S/O C.P. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO.36/3, N.G.BLOCK 4TH TEMPLE ROAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32411 W.P. No.1381/2021 C/W W.P. No.3656/2021 16TH CROSS, MALLESWARM BENGALURU CITY 560055. 8. SRI. K. RAJU S/O K.M. KRISHNAIAH NAIDU AGED 54 YEARS R/A NO.3365/QR, I CROSS KUVEMPU NAGARA, MCB BLOCK DAVANAGERE CITY 577002. 9. SRI. C.R. ASHOK S/O C.P. RANGASWAMY AGED 44 YEARS R/O INDIRA NAGARA NEAR SUGAR FACTORY MALLAVAGOPPA WARD NO.5 SHIVAMOGGA CITY 577201. 10. SRI. T.M. RAGHUNATH S/O T. MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O N.R. PURA ROAD ODDINAKOPPA, VIDYA NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA CITY 577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV., FOR R1 TO R8 & R10 [ABSENT] R9 C.R. ASHOK IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 07.01.2021 VIDE ANNX-E PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA ON I.A.NO.29 IN OS.NO.97/2016 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE W.P. & ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32411 W.P. No.1381/2021 C/W W.P. No.3656/2021 IN W.P. NO.3656/2021: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O H. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/O ODDINAKOPPA VILLAGE NIDIGE HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST 577201. 2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT HOSKOPPA VILLAGE HOLEHONNUR HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST 577103. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. R. RUDRAPPA S/O LATE T. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O R. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 3. SMT. YOGITHASHREE .R W/O K. HONNESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HOUSE WIFE. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32411 W.P. No.1381/2021 C/W W.P. No.3656/2021 4. KUM. MADURA .H D/O K. HONNESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS. 5. KUM. MANASA .H D/O K. HONNESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS. 4 & 5 SINCE MINORS ARE REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. YOGITHASHREE R. 1 TO 5 ARE R/O ODDINAKOPPA VILLAGE N.R. PURA ROAD SHIVAMOGGA CITY 577201. SRI. K.V. SWAMY DEAD. 6. SRI. K.V. JAIRAJ S/O LATE K.V. SWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A RADHAKRISHNA NILAYA APMC OPP KALLESWARA EXTN HOSADURGA 577527 CHITRADURGA DIST. 7. SRI. C.R. SWAMY S/O C.P. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO.36/3, L G BLOCK 4TH TEMPLE ROAD 16 TH CROSS MALLESWARAM BENGALURU CITY 560 055. 8. SRI. K. RAJU S/O K.M. KRISHNAIAH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A 3365/QR, I CROSS KUVEMPU NAGARA, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32411 W.P. No.1381/2021 C/W W.P. No.3656/2021 MCB BLOCK DAVANAGERE CITY 577002. 9. SRI. C.R. ASHOK S/O C.P. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O INDIRA NAGARA NEAR SUGAR FACTORY MALLAVAGOPPA WARD NO.5 SHIVAMOGGA CITY 577201. 10. SRI. T.M. RAGHUNATH S/O T. MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O N.R. PURA ROAD ODDINAKOPPA VIDYA NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA CITY 577201. ...RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 TO R6, R8 AND R10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.8.1.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM SHIVAMOGGA ON IA NO.30 IN O.S.NO.97/2016 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE W.P. & ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32411 W.P. No.1381/2021 C/W W.P. No.3656/2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER W.P.No.1381/2021 is filed challenging the order dated 07.01.2021 passed on I.A.No.29 in O.S.No.97/2016 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga. W.P.No.3656/2021 is filed challenging the order dated 08.01.2021 passed on I.A.No.30 in O.S.No.97/2016 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Mohan Kumar T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 4. The petitioners-plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.97/2016 against the respondents-defendants seeking judgment and decree to declare that the alleged partition deed dated 03.09.2015 entered between the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32411 W.P. No.1381/2021 C/W W.P. No.3656/2021 plaintiffs and defendant No.1 is not binding on the plaintiffs and further declaration that registered sale agreement dated 03.09.2015 between the defendant Nos.1 to 05 and defendant Nos.6 to 10 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for decree of partition and separation possession of 1/3rd share over the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the respondents have filed a detailed written statement. The trial has commenced. Thereafter, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed two applications viz., i) I.A.No.29 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint and ii) I.A.No.30 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking to implead the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property. Both the applications came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the application seeking amendment is filed belatedly after the commencement of the trial and consequently, rejected the application for impleadment. 5. It is required to be noticed that the petitioners’ suit is for declaration that earlier partition is not binding - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32411 W.P. No.1381/2021 C/W W.P. No.3656/2021 and the alleged agreement of sale dated 03.09.2015 between the defendant Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.6 to 10 is null and void. It is further required to be noticed that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 sold the suit schedule property in favour of the proposed defendant Nos.11 to 15. The prayer sought in the suit is seeking declaration that the partition is not binding and agreement is null and void and later the very defendants have alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the proposed defendants. In my considered view, the said event being the subsequent event and during the pendency of the suit, hence it is required to be brought on record by way of amendment. The petitioners-plaintiffs are also seeking an additional prayer that the sale deed dated 07.12.2018 is not binding on the plaintiffs. In view of the subsequent events, during the pendency of the suit the sale has taken place, hence, I am of the considered view that the proposed amendment to the plaint is required to be allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32411 W.P. No.1381/2021 C/W W.P. No.3656/2021 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhanalakshmi and Ors. v. P.Mohan and Ors.1, wherein para No.5 of the said judgment reads as under: “5. Section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit. In the instant case, the appellants have admittedly purchased the undivided shares of Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 6. It is not in dispute that the first respondent P. Mohan has got an undivided share in the said suit property. Because of the purchase by the appellants of the undivided share in the suit property, the rights of the first respondent herein in the suit or proceeding will not affect his right in the suit property by enforcing a partition. Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co-sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings. In our opinion, the appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit, which is now pending before the trial court. We also make it clear that we are not concerned with the other suit filed by the mortgagee in these proceedings.” 7. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the 1 AIR 2007 SC 1062 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32411 W.P. No.1381/2021 C/W W.P. No.3656/2021 considered view that the proposed defendants are necessary parties to decide the lis between the parties. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petitions are allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 07.01.2021 passed on I.A.No.29 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed on I.A.No.30 in O.S.No.97/2016 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga, are set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.29 and I.A.No.30 are allowed. iii. The petitioners/plaintiffs shall file amended plaint and implead the proposed defendants and also file amended plaint by adding the proposed defendants in the plaint within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv. The defendants are at liberty to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31