- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 22874 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. Y. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O YELLAPPA, HINDU 49 YEARS, CHANDRA ENGINEERING WORK NO. 57/1, BANNERGHATTA ROAD SRI RAMA NAGAR (N S PALYA) LANDLORD YELLAPPA LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 076. 2. SRI. Y. ASHOK S/O YELLAPPA HINDU, 48 YEARS RESIDING AT BELLAKAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 076. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.R. ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAMASWAMY S/O MUNIYAPPA @ KUTTIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BILEKAHALLI, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 BANGALORE - 560 076. 2. SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA @ KUTTIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BILEKAHALLI BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 076. 3. SRI. SANJEEVAPPA S/O IYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, BILEKAHALLIL, BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 076. 4. SRI. SHAMANNA S/O IYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ABBAYAPPA LAYOUT, N.S. PALYA BANNERTHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 076. 4(A). SMT. MUNIYELLAMMA D/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 4(B). SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4(C). SRI. S. SRINIVASA S/O LATE SHAMANNA - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 4(C)(i) SMT. VIJAYA W/O LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4(C)(ii) VASANTHAKUMAR S/O LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS BOTH R/AT NO.30, 4TH MAIN ROAD 5TH CROSS, N.S. PALYA BTM 2ND STGAE BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076. 4(C)(iii). SMT. NETHRAVATHI D/O LATE SRINIVASA W/O VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT HALE HALLI VILLAGE, MAYSANDRA POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 107. 4(D). SRI. S. VENKATESH S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 4(E). SRI. AIYAPPA S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 4(F). SRI. S. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE SHAMANNA - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4(G). SRI. GOVINDARAJ S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4(H). SRI. RAMESH S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.100 4TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS ROAD, ABBAYAPPA LAYOUT, N.S. PALYA, BTM 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 076. 5. SRI. YELLAPPA S/O IYAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, NO.57/1, 7TH MAIN, BTM II STAGE BANGALORE - 560 076. 6. SMT. MUNIYELLAMMA W/O LATE MUNISANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 7TH MAIN, 21ST CROSS BTM II STAGE, (N.S. PALYA) BANGALORE - 560 076. 7. SRINIVAS S/O LATE MUNISNJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 7TH MAIN, 21ST CROSS BTM II STAGE, (N.S. PALYA) - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 BANGALORE - 560 076. 8. SRI. NAGARAJA S/O LATE MUNISANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 7TH MAIN, 21ST CROSS BTM II STAGE, (N.S. PALYA) BANGALORE - 560 076 9. MUNIYAMMA D/O LATE MUNISANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 7TH MAIN, 21ST CROSS BTM II STAGE, (N.S. PALYA) BANGALORE - 560 076 10. NAGAMMA D/O LATE MUNISANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 7TH MAIN, 21ST CROSS BTM II STAGE, (N.S. PALYA) BANGALORE - 560 076 11. YELLAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA @ BODIGA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MAHASAKTHI GANAPATHI STREET BODIYAPPA WATARA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 076. 12. SRI. CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O SRI. MUNICHINNAMMA - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 13. SMT. SUDHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, D/O SRI MUNICHINNAMMA 14. SRI. RAJA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O SRI MUNICHINNAMMA (NOS. 12, 13 AND 14 ARE RESIDING AT THIGALARABEEDI, VARTHUR, VARTHUR POST, BANGALORE - 560 087) 15. SRI. K. MUNIYAPPA @ BODIGA S/O KRSIHANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAHASAHTHA GANAPATHI STREET, BODIGAPPA WATARA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 076. 16. SMT. SUREKHA D/O SANJEEVI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.359, 17TH CROSS, 26TH MAIN ANNJANYA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD PUTTANNAHALLI MAIN ROAD J.P. NAGAR, 6TH CROSS BANGALORE - 560 078. 17. SMT. VASANTHA DEVADAS W/O SRI. K. DEVADAS AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 R/AT NO.82, N.S. PALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 072. 18. SRI. KRISHNA PRAJWAL (KRISHNA KUMAR) S/O SRI. CHANGAPPA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO. 302, 2ND CROSS, C.T. BED, THYAGARAJ NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 028. 19. SRI. K. DEVADAS S/O LATE KAVERAPPA 20. SRI. SHASHIKUMAR S/O K. DEVADAS 21. JAYANTHI D/O K. DEVADAS 22. RADHIKA D/O K. DEVADAS RESPONDENT NO.19 TO 22 ARE R/AT NO.40, 4TH MAIN, N.S. PALYA, B.T.M LAYOUT II STAGE BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076. 23. Y. NAGESH S/O. LATE. YELLAPPA, 24. Y. MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE. YELLAPPA, - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 57/1, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, N.S. PALYA, BTM II STAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076. 25. SRI. Y. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE. YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO. 98/1, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, KUTTIYAPPA GARDEN, BILEKALHALLI, BANGALORE - 76. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. ERAPPA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R17, R19, R20, R20, R21 AND R22; SRI. FREUD RICHARDSON, ADVOCATE FOR R23 AND R24; SRI. Y. HARIPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R25; SMT. S.B. LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR R4(1, 2, 4 TO 8) AND R4(3)(A TO C); VIDE ORDER DATED 09.02.2021, NOTICE TO R1, R11, R15 AND R16 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R12, R13, R14, R18 SERVED; 4(C1), (C2) AND (C3) ARE SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.06.2026, R3(1) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R3(2), R3(3), R3(4), R3(6), R3(7), R3(8), R3(5) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDXER DTD 24.4.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6657/2003 ON IA NO.11 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the order passed by the Court below on I.A.No.11 filed by the proposed parties under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), whereby the said application has been allowed and the applicants have been permitted to come on record and contest the suit in order to establish their alleged right under a testamentary disposition. 2. The proposed parties claim to be the children born through late Yellappa. Their case, in substance, is that their father, late Yellappa, had acquired the property bearing Sy.No.57/1 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 26.01.1946. It is their further case that the said property had subsequently been mortgaged and that the mortgage was later discharged by their father. On the premise that the suit schedule property was the self-acquired property of late Yellappa, the proposed parties contend that he had - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 made a testamentary disposition in their favour under a Will dated 23.01.2010. On the strength of the said Will, they claim to have acquired absolute right, title and interest over the property and consequently assert that their presence is necessary for the complete and effective adjudication of the lis pending before the Court below. 3. The proposed parties, accordingly, filed I.A.No.11 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking their impleadment. The learned Judge, having regard to the nature of the claim set up by the applicants and the testamentary arrangement relied upon by them, has allowed the application and permitted them to come on record so as to enable them to establish their alleged right under the Will. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs would contend that the proposed parties have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and that the Will dated 23.01.2010 set up by them is seriously disputed. It is therefore urged that the learned Judge was not justified in permitting their impleadment. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record and the grounds urged in the writ petition. 6. The principal grievance of the petitioners appears to be against the testamentary arrangement relied upon by the impleading applicants. However, the mere fact that the applicants have been permitted to come on record cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as an acceptance or adjudication of the genuineness, validity or due execution of the Will dated 23.01.2010. 7. The question as to whether the alleged Will was in fact executed by late Yellappa, whether it was duly executed and attested, and whether the same is surrounded by any suspicious circumstances are all matters which necessarily require adjudication by the competent Court in accordance with law. The burden of proving the testamentary disposition would rest upon the propounders of the Will. The alleged Will has to be proved in accordance with the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as applicable to the proceedings. Such proof can be tested only in the course of trial and cannot be undertaken while considering an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC. 8. The scope of consideration at the stage of an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC is therefore limited. The Court is required to examine whether the presence of the proposed parties is necessary or proper for an effective and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit. At this stage, the Court is not required to conclusively pronounce upon the title or the validity of the document relied upon by the proposed parties. 9. In the present case, the impleading applicants have specifically set up an independent claim over the suit schedule property founded upon the alleged testamentary disposition made by late Yellappa. Their claim is directly connected with the subject matter of the pending suit. If such persons are excluded from the proceedings, the Court may not be in a position to effectively and completely adjudicate the rival claims concerning the property. It is in this backdrop that the learned - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 Judge has recorded a finding that their presence is necessary for complete adjudication of the lis between the parties. 10. In my considered view, the reasoning assigned by the learned Judge does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The impleadment of the applicants does not confer any title upon them nor does it amount to a declaration that the Will set up by them is genuine or legally enforceable. The applicants would necessarily have to establish their claim in the pending proceedings by adducing legally admissible evidence and by satisfying the statutory requirements governing proof of a Will. All objections of the petitioners in that regard are left open for consideration by the Court below. 11. There is, however, one aspect which requires to be noticed. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the interim order granted in the proceedings had not been extended beyond the year 2025. If that be so, it is rather surprising that the learned Judge appears to have proceeded on the premise that an order of stay continues to operate and, consequently, - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 has not insisted upon the parties proceeding with the trial of the suit. 12. An interim order operates only for the period for which it is granted or extended in accordance with law. Once such interim protection ceases to operate, the mere pendency of the proceedings before the higher Court cannot, by itself, be construed as a continuation of the interim order. Therefore, if no subsisting order of stay is operating, the learned Judge is required to proceed with the suit in accordance with law, subject, of course, to any subsequent order passed by the competent Court. 13. Subject to the above observation, this Court finds no merit in the challenge to the order allowing I.A.No.11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 14. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the question of impleadment and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the genuineness, validity, due execution or legal effect of the Will dated 23.01.2010. All contentions of the parties on the said issue, as - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058672017 NC: 2026:KHC:48987 WP No. 22874 of 2017 also on their respective title and entitlement to the suit schedule property, are expressly kept open for consideration by the Court below. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4