- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35328 CP No. 63 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CIVIL PETITION NO. 63 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SMT TEJASWINI P.L D/O LATE. LAKSHMINARAYANA .P.M, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO 57/B, 5TH CROSS, 2ND 'C’ MAIN, BAPUJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 026. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMAMMA @VIJAYAMMA, W/O LATE. LAKSHMINARAYANA .P.M, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO. 250, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, R.R LAYOUT, NAGADENAHALLI, BENGALURU-56. 2. SRI. NOOTHAN NANDAKISHNA P.L @NUTHAN NADA KIRSHNA GUNDURAO S/O LATE.LAKSHMINARYANA P.M, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. 250, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, R.R LAYOUT, NAGADENAHALLI BENGALURU-56. 3. SMT. ANITHA R W/O PURUSHOTHAM Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35328 CP No. 63 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO 9/16, 6TH CROSS 2ND A MAIN ROAD, GOVINDARAJANAGAR BENGALURU-560 010. 4. SMT.JANAKAMMA, W/O LATE MALLAIAH, D/O LATE MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT DADAGHATTAMADAGU VILAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALLUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K. SHOBHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SRI. RAGHAVENDRA .V., ADVOCATE FOR R4, R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CPC., PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER UNDER SEC.24 OF THE CPC., OS NO.388/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT DODDABALLAPURA AND TRANSFER IT TO PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY TO BE TRIED ALONG WITH OS NO.6904/2021. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served and unrepresented. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35328 CP No. 63 of 2026 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner against respondent No.1/Smt.Vijayalakshmamma, respondent No.2/Sri.Noothan Nandakishna P.L., respondent No.3/Smt.Anitha R, and respondent No.4/Smt.Janakamma to transfer O.S.No.388/2020 from the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura, to the Principal City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City to try along with O.S.No.6904/2021. 3. It is stated that the petitioner is defendant No.4 in OS No.388/2020 filed before Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura in which the present respondent No.4 is the plaintiff. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the defendant Nos.1 to 3 before the trial court. In OS No.6904/2021, plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No.1/respondent No.1 and late Lakshminarayana, in the present case. Defendant No.2/Sri.Nuthan Nanda Kishna Gundurao is the son of first defendant and late Lakshminarayana. Defendant No.3/Anith R, respondent No.3 in the present petition is stranger to the family of plaintiff and defendant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35328 CP No. 63 of 2026 Nos.1 and 2. The suit schedule property is joint family property. As such, plaintiff filed suit for partition and other releifs. 4. It is further stated that the mother/respondent No.1 and brother/respondent No.2 are entitled for 1/3rd share of the property. The suit schedule properties in OS No.6904/2021 are not subject matter of the suit schedule property in OS No.388/2020, but belongs to the same family. However, law of Title and Parties' rights involved are one and same. In OS No.388/2020, plaintiff is the daughter of one late Mallegowda and defendant No.1 is the son of late Mallegowda. Defendant No.2 is wife of late Lakshminarayana. Defendants Nos.3 and 4 are son and daughter of Lakshminarayana. The suit schedule properties are joint family properties. Respondent No.4 has filed suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share and the properties of the grandfather. 5. In both the cases in OS No.388/2020 and OS No.6904/2021, the question is pertinent to the properties - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35328 CP No. 63 of 2026 of Mallegowda and share of the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are common parties in both the suits. In order to prove petitioner's share of joint family properties, the same evidence is to be relied upon. Therefore, to avoid conflicting decisions on the same set of facts, the petitioner requested for transfer. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that in OS No.6904/2021, trial is completed and it was posted for arguments on 07.02.2026. Further, in OS No.388/2020, trial commenced and it is coming up for plaintiff/respondent No.4 further evidence on 23.02.2026. Thus requested for transfer of OS No.388/2020 from the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura, to the Principal City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City. 6. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the parties in both the matters are different and so also the properties are different. Therefore, it cannot be transferred. Both the suits are filed in the year 2020 and 2021 respectively. If at all the petitioner herein is intended - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35328 CP No. 63 of 2026 to lead evidence in both the matters commonly, she should have taken steps at the earlier point of time for clubbing of both the matters and for leading common evidence. But she kept quiet till the matter was posted in OS No.6904/2021 for arguments and came up with this application for clubbing both these matters. Merely because all the properties belongs to one family OS No. 388/2020 cannot be clubbed now with other matter. In O.S.No.6904/2021, three suit schedule properties are the subject matter and in O.S.No.388/2020, eight suit schedule properties are the subject matters and they are not one and the same. Therefore, this court finds that there are no merits in the application Accordingly this transfer application is dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1