Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 39798 (KAR)

SMT BHAGYAMMA v. SMT NARASAMMA (DEAD)

WP/975/2024 · 2026-09-07

K V Aravind

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48241 WP No. 975 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 975 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. SMT. GUNDAMMA D/O LATE CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. SRI. KENCHAPPA S/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 4. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ALL PETITIONERS No.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT UTTARAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH-82 5. SMT. ARASAMMA D/O LATE CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, AT KODIGEHALLI, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, VISHWANEEDAM POST, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48241 WP No. 975 of 2024 BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-91 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHASHI KIRAN V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NARASAMMA (DEAD), W/O LATE NANJAPPA R/AT UTTARI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH-82. (SINCE DEAD BY HER SUCCESSOR) SRI.LAKSHMINARASAPPA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AT NO.56, DODDABALE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH -562132 4. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT BHADEKATTE VILLAGE, KAGALIPURA POST, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU -82 5. SMT. BHARATHI D/O LATE NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS AT CHIKKEKODIGEHALLI, KODIGEHALLI POST, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU -560112 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48241 WP No. 975 of 2024 6. SMT.SARASWATHI D/O LATE NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RA/T NOCAL PALYA VILLAGE, SOMANAHALLI POST, KANKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU -82 7. SRI. JAYARAM S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS AT UTTARI VILLAGE, AT UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-82 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.M. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. INDRANI L., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA QUASH THE ORDER DTD 29.05.2023 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU IN RA NO.81/2022, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48241 WP No. 975 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Shashi Kiran V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. H.M. Somashekaraiah, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Indrani L., learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 2. This petition impugns the order dated 29.05.2023, whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 seeking to be impleaded as the legal heir of the deceased Narasamma, who was the appellant in R.A. No.81/2022, has been allowed on the basis of the Will dated 11.10.2019. 3. It is submitted that the trial Court, without affording an opportunity to the respondents therein, allowed the application. It is further submitted that the Will is under dispute. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that an opportunity was granted to the appellants herein to file their objections. However, as there was no representation on their behalf, the Appellate Court rightly proceeded to allow the application. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48241 WP No. 975 of 2024 5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. I.A. No.4 is filed under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC, seeking to implead respondent No.1 as the legal heir of deceased Narasamma, the appellant in R.A. No.81/2022, on the basis of the Will dated 11.10.2019. Under the impugned order, the Appellate Court, without affording an opportunity to the respondents to examine the Will and the right claimed thereunder, proceeded to allow the application on the same day. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Appellate Court ought to have granted an opportunity to the respondents to file their objections to the said application. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R (i) Order dated 29.05.2023 is set aside. (ii) I.A. No.4 filed under Order XXII Rule 3 is restored. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006782024 NC: 2026:KHC:48241 WP No. 975 of 2024 (iii) The petitioners herein is at liberty to file objection to the application. Thereafter, the Appellate Court shall consider the application on merits. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18