- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20795 W.P. No.1459/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1459/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MANJEGOWDA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA @ ANDANIGOWDA AGE 49 YEARS R/AT ANUVINAKATTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI K R PETE TALUK-571426 MANDYA DIST. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. KAMADOLI MANJULADEVI RAMAPPA, ADV.,) AND: 1. GOWRAMMA W/O PRAHALNADA D/O JAVAREGOWDA @ ANDANIGOWDA AGE 44 YEARS. 2. VANAJAKSHI W/O YOGESHA D/O JAVAREGOWDA @ ANDANIGOWDA AGE 42 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/O NAVILUMARANAHALLY VILLAGE, SHEELANERE HOBLI KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK-571426 MANDYA DISTRICT. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20795 W.P. No.1459/2022 DEVAMMA W/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA DEAD BY LRS. 3. BORAMMA W/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGE 81 YEARS R/AT KRISHNARAJPET TOWN-571426 C R PATNA ROAD NEAR PETROL BUNK KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. 4. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA AGE 79 YEARS R/O ANUVINAKATTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KRISHNARAJPET TALUK-571426 MANDYA DISTRICT. 5. SAROJA W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGE 61 YEARS R/O BOPPANAHALLY VILLAGE SHEELANERE HOBLI KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK-571426 MANDYA DISTRICT. 6. KAMALA W/O RAJEGOWDA AGE 59 YEARS R/O BIKSANDRA VILLAGE SANTHEBACHAHALLY HOBLI KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK-571426 MANDYA DISTRICT. 7. VIJI W/O RAJEGOWDA D/O JAVAREGOWDA @ ANDANIGOWDA AGE 43 YEARS R/AT SHARAVALLI VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20795 W.P. No.1459/2022 SANTHEBACHAHALLI HOBLI K R PETE TALUK-571426 MANDYA DIST. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 R5 & R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED NOTICE TO R3, R4 & R7 ARE D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn) AND J.M.F.C AT KRISHNARAJPET ON I.A. NO. 12 TO 14 IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.49/2011 DTD. 04.08.2021 VIDE ANNX-E & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, 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 04.08.2021 passed on IA.Nos.12 to 14 in RA.No.49/2011 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Krishnarajpet (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. Heard Smt.Kamadolli Manjuladevi Ramappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.K.R.Lingaraju, learned counsel appearing for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20795 W.P. No.1459/2022 respondent Nos.1 and 2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, claiming to be the daughters of Sri.Javaregowda and Smt.Shakuntala filed a suit in OS.No.39/2006 seeking partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be decreed in part. Being aggrieved, Sri.Javaregowda, the father of the plaintiffs, assailed the said judgment and decree in RA.No.49/2011. It is to be noticed that during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the appellant Sri.Javaregowda passed away. Thereafter, the petitioner herein claiming to be the son of late Sri.Javaregowda filed applications in IA.Nos.12 to 14 under Order XXII Rule 3, Order XXII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') respectively seeking to bring the LRs of the deceased appellant on record. The Appellate Court allowed the said applications. It is also to be noticed that the original plaintiffs i.e. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20795 W.P. No.1459/2022 respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have raised objection that Smt.Shakuntala, who is the first wife of late Sri.Javaregowda had not been brought on record after the death of the original appellant. The Appellate Court, under the impugned order while allowing the applications directed the petitioner herein to array Smt.Shakuntala as a party to the appeal. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that Smt.Shakuntala was not a party to the original suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and she being the second wife of late Sri.Javaregowda, is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings. However, the Appellate Court, in the impugned order recorded a clear finding that the children of Smt.Shakuntala and Sri.Javaregowda have stated that Smt.Shakuntala is the first wife and DW1, Sri.Javaregowda in his cross-examination also admitted that he has married Smt.Shakuntala. The Appellate Court held that the question as to whether she is the first or second wife requires adjudication in the appeal and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20795 W.P. No.1459/2022 proceeded to pass the impugned order. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Appellate Court calling for interference in this petition. The Appellate Court is required to determine whether Smt.Shakuntala has any right over the suit schedule property, and the issue regarding her status as the first or second wife of late Sri.Javaregowda is required to be adjudicated in the appeal. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observations with regard to the merits of the case. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22