- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010053772022 NC: 2026:KHC:40208 WP No. 2551 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2551 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1A. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LT SHIVANANJEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. HUCCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 1B. SMT. INDRAMMA W/O. RAVI URF NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 1C. SMT. PADMA W/O. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 1D. SMT. VASANTHA W/O. KAPANIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT VALAGERE SOMANAHALLI HUGGEGALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR 1A TO 1D) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010053772022 NC: 2026:KHC:40208 WP No. 2551 of 2022 AND: 1. SRI K NAGARAJU S/O LATE KAMBHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YERS R/AT ATTIHALLI VILLGE NUGGENAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 131 2. SRI. H.K. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE KAMBHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3. SRI. H.K. ASHOK S/OLT KAMBHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4. SMT KAMALAMMA W/O LT KAMBHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT ATTIHALLI VILLAGE NUGGENAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 131 5. SMT PRAMILA W/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT ULAVALLI VIILAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 124 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010053772022 NC: 2026:KHC:40208 WP No. 2551 of 2022 6. SMT GAYITHRI W/O NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT MATTANVILE VILLAGE SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI. PAVAN KUMAR K.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.S. MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1, R5, R6 ARE SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.01.2022 VIDE ANNX-A PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT CHANNARAYAPATNA, IN R.A.NO.83/2018. QUASH THE IMPUGNED DATED 19.01.2022 RA 83/18 VIDE ANNX-A PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE T CHANNARAYAPATNA DISMISSING I.A.NO.1/2021 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND 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 - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010053772022 NC: 2026:KHC:40208 WP No. 2551 of 2022 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.01.2022 passed in R.A.No.83/2018 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Channarayapatna (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellate Court' for short). 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. Respondent No.2 herein filed O.S.No.36/2010 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession with regard to certain properties. The said suit came to be decreed on 30.07.2018, wherein it was held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share in certain properties and defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are each entitled to 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties and defendant No.3 is entitled to 1/35th share in the suit schedule properties referred to in the judgment. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010053772022 NC: 2026:KHC:40208 WP No. 2551 of 2022 4. Defendant No.1 in the said suit, who is respondent No.1 herein, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.83/2018 before the appellate Court. In the said proceedings, one Smt. Lakshmamma (now deceased) filed I.A.No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment. The appellate Court, by order dated 19.01.2022, rejected the said application. 5. The affidavit accompanying the application indicates that the applicant claimed to be the daughter of Smt. Sanna Ningamma and Kambhegowda. It is required to be noticed that the present dispute for partition is between the children of Sri H. K. Kambegowda, who is the elder brother of the impleading applicant. Considering the said aspect, the appellate Court recorded reasons that the proposed respondent is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings and that the dispute can be decided in her absence, and accordingly, rejected the application. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010053772022 NC: 2026:KHC:40208 WP No. 2551 of 2022 6. I do not find any good ground to reverse the said order in this proceeding. The appellate Court has also recorded a finding that the proposed respondent, deceased Smt. Lakshmamma, is a third party and she has to work out her rights independently in accordance with law. I do not find any error or perversity in the impugned order of the appellate Court calling for interference. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same stands rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26