- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34125 WP No. 36774 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 36774 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O SHAMIAIAH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, 2. SMT M YASODHAMMA W/O K V JAGANATHANA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 3. SMT LALITHAMMA W/O H D CHANDRASHKAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS ALL THE PETITIONERS ABOVE ARE THE RESIDENTS OF NO.216, CHANDRODAYA PATEL NAJAPPA LAYOUT GOPAL EXTENSION SHIMOGA - 577 201 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE MALLAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2. NAGARAJ S/O LATE MALLAPPA GOWDA Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34125 WP No. 36774 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF MALIGE MEGUNDA HOBALI KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101 3. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE MALLAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 4. SMT BHANDAVYA D/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 5. SMT ATHMEEYA D/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF MALIGE VILALGE MEGUNDA HOBALI, KOPPA TQ CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2, R3, R4, R5 ARE SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTIONS OR ORDER QUASHING THE ANNX-'F' THAT THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALUR IN R.A.NO.40/2017 CONSEQUENTLY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34125 WP No. 36774 of 2019 ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.1 FILED U/O 1 RULE 10 R/W SEC. 107, AND 151 OF CPC BY THE PROPOSED RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS. 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 writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.07.2019 passed on I.A.No.1 under Order I Rule 10 read with Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) in R.A.No.40/2017 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court’ for short). 2. Heard Sri Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Pradeep Naik. K, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.135/2011 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be partly - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34125 WP No. 36774 of 2019 decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.06.2017. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court was assailed in R.A.No.40/2017 by defendant Nos.1 to 3. In the said appeal, the petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking to implead themselves as proposed respondents/defendant Nos.3 to 5. The said application was opposed by the respondents in the appeal. The Appellate Court, under the impugned order dated 19.07.2019, rejected the said application. 4. It is required to be noticed that the petitioners are claiming to be the sisters of the parties ie., the plaintiffs and defendants. The Appellate Court, taking note of the registered partition deed dated 16.07.1974 entered into between Sri Mallappagowda and his wife Smt. Lakshmamma and the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, has come to the conclusion that the petitioners/applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties as the partition has taken place under the said registered partition deed dated 16.07.1974, wherein a lifetime interest was created in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34125 WP No. 36774 of 2019 favour of the parents and, after their demise, in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. 5. Having considered the material on record, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Appellate Court calling for interference. 6. It is needless to observe that if the petitioners have any right under law, they have to work out the same in accordance with law. It is also made clear that this order would not come in the way of the parties settling the dispute amicably. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2