- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261422018 NC: 2026:KHC:37425 WP No. 38496 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 38496 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. (a) SMT. DHANALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O. LATE GANGADHARSWAMY, SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HER LRS., SMT. G. LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O. SRI. N. NAGARAJ, D/O. LATE DHANALAKSHMI, RESIDING AT NO.24, SECTOR-6, R.K. PURAM, RBI COLONY, MOHAN SINGH MARKET, NEW DELHI-110 022, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, SRI. G. RAVICHANDRAN. (b) SRI. G. RAVICHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. LATE GANGADHARASWAMY. (c) SRI. KIRAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. LATE GANGADHARASWAMY, PETITIONERS No.1(b) AND (c) ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 1924, 13TH CROSS, LINK ROAD, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261422018 NC: 2026:KHC:37425 WP No. 38496 of 2018 ASHOKAPURAM, MYSURU-570 008. 2. SMT. DEVARAJAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.2193, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSURU-570 008. 3. SMT. KAMALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O. SRI. SIDDARAJU, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 1735, 13TH CROSS, LINK ROAD, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSURU-570 008. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI Y V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y K NARAYANA SHARMA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHANKARANANDA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE DODDALINGAIAH. 2. SMT. NIVEDITHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O. SRI. MAHAJAN. 3. SRI. MAHESHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. LATE GANGADHARASWAMY. 4. SRI. KARTHIK AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O. LATE GANGADHARASWAMY. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261422018 NC: 2026:KHC:37425 WP No. 38496 of 2018 5. SMT. SUMITHRA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O. LATE GANGADHARASWAMY, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1566/1, CH12, 4TH CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSURU-570 008. 6. SRI. SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHAMAIAH. 7. SRI. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHAMAIAH. RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 1887, 13TH CROSS, LINK ROAD, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSURU-570 008. 8. SRI. CHIKKALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH. 9. SMT. SANNATHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, W/O. LATE LINGAIAH. 10. SRI. REVANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE LINGAIAH. 11. SRI. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261422018 NC: 2026:KHC:37425 WP No. 38496 of 2018 S/O. LATE LINGAIAH. 12. SRI. D. MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O. LATE LINGAIAH. 13. SMT. RAJALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O. LATE LINGAIAH. 14. SMT. MANGALAGOWRY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O. LATE LINGAIAH. 15. SMT. CHANDRAPRABHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O. LATE LINGAIAH. 16. SMT. BRINDAVATHI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, D/O. LATE LINGAIAH. 17. SMT. HEMALATHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D/O. LATE LINGAIAH. RESPONDENTS 8 TO 17 ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 2123, CH 17, 2ND CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSURU-570 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B K MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R8, SRI MANJUNATH K V FOR SRI P N RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R9 TO R13 & 15 TO 17, V/O DATED NOTICE TO R6 & R7 HELD SUFFICIENT. R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 ARE SERVED, - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261422018 NC: 2026:KHC:37425 WP No. 38496 of 2018 V/O DATED 5.7.2023 NOTICE TO R10, R12 TO R14 AND R16 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 25.06.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.946/2016 BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURE, VIDE ANNX-K AND ALLOW THE SAID I.A.NO.1 AND STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN FDP NO.13/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, TILL THE DISPOSAL OF O.S.NO.946/2016 OR PASS OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging order dated 25.06.2018 passed on I.A. No.1 in OS No.946/2016 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru (for short `the Trial Court'). 2. Sri Y. V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the cousins of the petitioners instituted a suit against the petitioners' brother without impleading the petitioners, who are daughters of one Doddalingaiah, as parties to the suit. The said suit came to - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261422018 NC: 2026:KHC:37425 WP No. 38496 of 2018 be decreed, and the decree has attained finality in appeal. Thereafter, Final Decree Proceedings in FDP No.13/1998 were initiated. It is submitted that the petitioners came to know of the said fraudulent decree and the initiation of the final decree proceedings, and thereafter, they instituted O.S.No.946/2016 seeking partition and separate possession, along with a declaration that the decree passed in the earlier suit is null and void. In the said suit, the petitioners also filed an application seeking stay of further proceedings in FDP No.13/1998, which came to be rejected erroneously by the Trial Court. 3. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioners is specific that the petitioners were not arrayed as parties in earlier suit, and the said suit was not properly defended as the uncle of the petitioners executed a release deed in favour of the petitioners' father. Hence, such a defence is not taken in the earlier suit and the suit itself ought to have been dismissed. Hence, if FDP - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261422018 NC: 2026:KHC:37425 WP No. 38496 of 2018 proceedings are allowed to continue, the rights of the petitioners would be jeopardised. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Sri B. K. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8, Sri P N Rajeshwara, learned counsel for the respondents No.9 to 13 and 15 to 17 support the impugned order and submit that the petitioners have yet to establish their rights over the property. It is submitted that the respondents have filed a suit and the said suit is decreed and the petitioners cannot contend that the decree obtained lawfully by the parties to the suit in OS No.201/2016 is bad in law and FDP is required to be stayed. Hence they seek to dismiss the writ petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the materials available on record. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261422018 NC: 2026:KHC:37425 WP No. 38496 of 2018 6. It is to be noticed that one Sri S Sidharaju and S. Papanna filed a suit in OS No.201/1995 against Puttasiddhamma, Gangadharaswamy, Shankarananda Murthy and Lingaiah for relief of partition and separate possession. The said suit on contest was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 03.12.1997. The records indicate that the said judgment was assailed before the Appellate Court and the said judgment has attained finality. The plaintiffs in the said suit initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No.13/1998. The said FDP proceedings are pending before the competent Court. It is required to be noticed that the petitioners herein had filed OS No.946/2016 against the parties in OS No.201/1995 seeking relief that the preliminary decree dated 03.12.1997 passed in OS No.201/1995 by the learned 2nd Munsiff at Mysore is null and void, non-est, and not binding upon the plaintiffs and also sought for partition. In the said suit, some of the defendants have filed written - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261422018 NC: 2026:KHC:37425 WP No. 38496 of 2018 statement. Thereafter, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application in IA No.1 under Section 94(E) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to pass an ex-parte order, staying further proceedings in FDP No.13/1998, and the said application was opposed by the defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court under the impugned order rejected the said application by recording reason that, the plaintiffs are claiming right under one Doddalingaiah, who is said to be the ancestor of the plaintiffs, and the decree has attained finality in RSA and there is no justification to stay the further proceedings in FDP. 7. It is required to be noticed that the petitioners are contending that they are the daughters of Doddalingaiah and the brothers of Doddalingaiah by name Siddhaiah and Lingaiah have executed the release deed in favour of Doddalingaiah. Hence the plaintiffs in OS No.201/1995 have no right for seeking partition and the - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261422018 NC: 2026:KHC:37425 WP No. 38496 of 2018 said aspect is required to be brought on record and without impleading the petitioners as parties in OS 201/1995, decree was obtained. 8. It is required to be noted that the petitioners have made the aforesaid assertions in OS No.946/2016 and the said assertions of the petitioners/plaintiffs are required to be adjudicated by the Trial Court in a full- fledged trial. Until the said assertions are accepted and decree is passed, in my considered view, the petitioners cannot seek for stay of further proceedings in FDP No.13/1998. 9. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioners' claim, I am of the considered view that if the petitioners succeed in OS No.946/2016, it would be open for them to claim that the final decree if drawn in FDP No.13/1998 does not bind upon the petitioners. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261422018 NC: 2026:KHC:37425 WP No. 38496 of 2018 10. It is also required to be noticed that the petitioners' prayer in OS No.946/2016 is specific that the judgment in OS No.201/1995 is not binding and null and void and until the suit is decided, the petitioners cannot seek stay of further proceedings in FDP No.13/1998. The Trial Court taking note of the same, has rightfully rejected the application. Hence, I do not find any error in the order calling for interference. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27