- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010315032019 NC: 2026:KHC:51386 WP No. 49903 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 49903 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. PADMAVATHI B K D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.21 GRAMADEVATHA STREET LALBAGH UPPARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 004 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KASHINATH J D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. V SAMPANGI SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE V SAMPANGI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SRI M MANJESH S/O LATE V SAMPANGI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 3. SRI CHANDRA KANTH S/O LATE V SAMPANGI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 4. SMT S VEENA D/O ALTE V SAMPANGI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010315032019 NC: 2026:KHC:51386 WP No. 49903 of 2019 ALL ARE R/AT NO.7 S N LANE LALBAGH, UPPARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 004 5. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 6. SRI VINOD S/O LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 7. SMT VINUTHA D/O LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 8. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RAMADASAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS 9. SRI DEVADAS S/O LATE RAMADASAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.7 S N LANE LALBAGH, UPPARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 004 10. SMT LALITHAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 11. SRI RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 EYARS, 12. SMT SHASHIKALA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010315032019 NC: 2026:KHC:51386 WP No. 49903 of 2019 13. SMT LATHADEVI D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 EYARS, R/AT NO.21 GARAMDEVATHA STREET LALBAGH UPPARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 004 14. SRI. SADANANDA R/AT NO.6 & 8, S.N. LANE LALBAGH, UPPARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AKMAL PASHA & INTIYAZ PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R9 (NOC) (VK RETURNED IN R/O R8) SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR R14 & R1(A &B) SRI. SHARANABASAPPA K MARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R10, R12 & R13 R11 RAVIKUMAR, SERVED V/O DATED 10.07.2025 WP AGAINST R8 STANDS ABATED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ON IA NOS.10 AND 11 DTD.21.9.2019 ANENXURE-A PASSED BY THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 36) IN O.S.NO.1042/2013 AND PRAYS TO ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS OR DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER THE SAID APPLICATIONS AFRESH BY ISSUING NOTICE ON IA NO.10 TO THE IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010315032019 NC: 2026:KHC:51386 WP No. 49903 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed by defendant No.4, calling in question the order dated 21.09.2019 passed by the learned Trial Judge on I.A.Nos.10 and 11, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of the proposed defendant No.6, stated to be a pendente lite purchaser, and for a direction to the proposed defendant No.6 to produce the documents pertaining to item No.3 of the suit schedule property, came to be rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court was that the plaintiffs had alienated their alleged half share in item No.3 of the suit schedule property and, therefore, the purchaser was a necessary party to the pending partition suit. The plaintiffs contested the applications by filing their objections and specifically denied having alienated any portion of the suit schedule Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010315032019 NC: 2026:KHC:51386 WP No. 49903 of 2019 properties. The learned Trial Judge, having considered the rival contentions, rejected both the applications. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff. Perused the records. 4. What is rather disturbing is that the petitioner, who is defendant No.4, sought impleadment of a proposed defendant on the premise that the plaintiffs had alienated a portion of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs, in their objections, have categorically denied the alleged alienation. Except for the assertion made by the petitioner, no credible material is placed on record to establish that the plaintiffs have, in fact, alienated their alleged half share in item No.3 of the suit schedule property. Notwithstanding the rejection of the applications by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has obtained an interim order from this Court and, consequently, the proceedings in the partition suit have remained stalled since 2019. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010315032019 NC: 2026:KHC:51386 WP No. 49903 of 2019 It is well settled that a stranger claiming through an alienation of an undivided interest in joint family property does not, merely by reason of such alienation, become a necessary party to a partition suit. The principal issue in a partition suit is determination of the subsisting rights and shares of the coparceners/co-sharers having a pre-existing right in the property. The rights of a purchaser claiming through one of the parties can ordinarily be worked out in accordance with law. 5. In the present case, the petitioner seeks impleadment of the alleged purchaser as a pendente lite purchaser. A pendente lite purchaser cannot claim a better right or status merely on account of the purchase having been effected during the pendency of the suit. Such a transaction is governed by the doctrine of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Consequently, even assuming that there has been an alienation by the plaintiff during the pendency of the Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010315032019 NC: 2026:KHC:51386 WP No. 49903 of 2019 suit, such alienation, by itself, does not render the purchaser a necessary party for adjudication of the partition between the parties, who possess the pre-existing rights. 6. In the absence of any cogent or credible material establishing the alleged alienation of the plaintiffs’ half share in item No.3, the learned Trial Judge was justified in declining to implead the proposed defendant No.6 and in rejecting the connected application seeking production of documents. No jurisdictional error or perversity is demonstrated in the impugned order warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. What is more significant is that the suit is one for partition and has remained pending for several years. The record indicates that the proceedings have been stalled since 2019 on account of the interim order obtained by the petitioner, even though the matter had reached the stage Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010315032019 NC: 2026:KHC:51386 WP No. 49903 of 2019 of arguments. A partition suit, involving determination of the rights and shares of the parties, cannot be permitted to be unnecessarily protracted on the basis of an impleading application founded on an unsubstantiated allegation of alienation. 8. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner must bear the consequences of unnecessarily protracting the proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner to the legal heirs of the original plaintiff on the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Judge shall now proceed with the suit expeditiously. The learned counsel appearing for the parties shall address their fresh arguments, whereafter the learned Trial Judge shall proceed to pronounce judgment in accordance with law. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010315032019 NC: 2026:KHC:51386 WP No. 49903 of 2019 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the pending partition suit or on the rights and shares claimed by the respective parties. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified