- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33733 W.P. No.3541/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3541/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K. NANJUNDAIAH S/O LATE KUMARAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT HOSAMBATA (SITUATE WITHIN THE PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY) BEHIND SHARADA TALKIES OLD MDRAS BANGALORE ROAD KOLAR TOWN-563 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARADARAJAN M.S. ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. SOWBHAGYAMMA W/O NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.53, MSK NAGAR GORUGUNTANAPALYA BANGALORE-560 022. 2. SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O BASAVARAJ D/O LATE CHIKKA RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT HOSAMATA BEHIND SHARADA TALKIES KOLAR-563102. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33733 W.P. No.3541/2021 3. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O SHIVA LINGARADHYA D/O CHIKKA RUDRAIAH R/AT KONGAHATTA VILLAGE DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE- RURAL DISTRICT-562163. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001. 5. B.G. SOMASHEKARA S/O B.M. GURUNANJUNDAPPA. 6. K.S. NANJUNDAPPA S/O SANGAPPA. 7. M.G. JAGANNATH S/O GURUMALLAIAH. [R4 TO R7 DELETED V/C/O DTD:19.02.2021] …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAKSHITH R, ADV., FOR C/R3 & ALSO FOR R1 & R2 V/O/DTD:19.02.2021, R4 TO R7 DELETED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.17 IN O.S.NO.250/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM KOLAR ANNEXURE-A & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33733 W.P. No.3541/2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 01.02.2021 passed on I.A.No.17 in O.S.No.250/2013 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Kolar (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. Sri.M.S.Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.250/2013 for declaration that the father of the plaintiff - Sri.Kumaraiah is in possession of the property adverse to the interest of the defendant No.1 - Government. It is submitted that prior to filing of the suit, the plaintiff had filed a suit against the respondent No.5 herein and the said suit came to be dismissed on the ground that the property is belonged to the Government and without making the Government a party, the suit is not maintainable and the same was assailed in appeal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33733 W.P. No.3541/2021 which was allowed and in Regular Second Appeal filed by respondent No.5, this Court observed that the plaintiff is required to file a consolidated suit. Hence, the present suit was filed making respondent No.5 as defendant along with the Government. In the said suit, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed an application to implead themselves as additional defendants by contending that the suit schedule property is joint family property and they are necessary and proper parties and they are in possession of their father's share. It is further submitted that the suit of the petitioner is on a specific cause of action that his father is in adverse possession of the entire suit schedule property and the relief is mainly against the Government and in the said suit, the cousins of the petitioner cannot come and contend that they have a share until their share is determined in a duly constituted suit, hence, they cannot be arrayed as defendants as they are neither necessary nor a proper parties to the suit. It is also submitted that even the respondent Nos.1 to 3 - applicants would not be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33733 W.P. No.3541/2021 remediless if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit and decree is granted in his favour, it is always open for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to file a separate suit by contending that the decree would enure to their benefit to the extent of their possession if they establish the possession over the property. Hence, the application filed by the respondents 1 to 3 is not maintainable and the trial Court failed to appreciate the same. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.331/1994 against the respondent No.5 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed on 17.09.1998; being aggrieved, the petitioner - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33733 W.P. No.3541/2021 filed an appeal in R.A.No.239/1998, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 25.10.2007. The defendants challenged the judgment dated 25.10.2007 passed in R.A.No.239/1998 before this Court in RSA No.333/2008. This Court vide judgment dated 21.09.2010, allowed RSA No.333/2008 by observing that the petitioner to file a comprehensive declaratory suit by impleading the State as a party. 6. The material on record indicates that the petitioner-plaintiff thereafter had filed the suit in O.S.No.250/2013 seeking the relief of declaration by adverse possession by impleading the State as a party. The defendants have filed written statement and the matter was pending, at that stage, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to implead them as defendant Nos.5 to 7. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court under the impugned order, allowed the said application. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33733 W.P. No.3541/2021 7. The primary contention of the respondent Nos.1 to 3/impleading applicants is that they are in possession of their father's legitimate share in the suit schedule property and hence, they are necessary and proper parties to the suit. To substantiate the said stand, it is averred by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they are the children of Chikka Rudraiah, who is the brother of the plaintiff's father late Kumaraiah. 8. It is required to be noticed that the petitioner- plaintiff has made a specific assertion in the plaint that the plaintiff's grandfather was in possession of the suit schedule property. Later, the plaintiff’s father Kumaraiah was in possession of the suit schedule property from decades and respondent No.5 herein tried to interfere with the said property, hence, the petitioner had filed a suit which was culminated into Regular Second Appeal and later this suit in O.S.No.250/2013 is filed against the State Government seeking declaratory relief that the petitioner- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33733 W.P. No.3541/2021 plaintiff is in adverse possession of the suit schedule property. 9. It is also required to be noticed that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 - impleading applicants are claiming to be in possession of a portion of the suit schedule property, in my considered view, the said issue is required to be adjudicated by the competent authority, either the respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall file an independent suit seeking similar relief, if they are in possession, or they have to file a partition suit, if the plaintiff in the present suit succeeds and gets the decree in his favour, by establishing that they were in possession of the portion of the suit schedule property and their legitimate share in the suit schedule property and not by filing an application to come on record in the suit filed by the petitioner against the State seeking declaration of ownership by adverse possession. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33733 W.P. No.3541/2021 permitting the respondent Nos.1 to 3 – impleading applicants to come on record as defendant Nos.5 to 7. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that respondent Nos.1 to 3 also have the remedy to file a suit if the petitioner-plaintiff succeeds in the suit and gets the decree by contending that they are in possession of a portion of the suit schedule property and the decree would enure to their benefit. 11. With the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 01.02.2021 passed on I.A.No.17 in O.S.No.250/2013 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Kolar is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.17 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC is rejected. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33733 W.P. No.3541/2021 In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending applications, if any, are closed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23