Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010645602026 NC: 2026:KHC:53921 WP No. 29456 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 29456 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. GIRIJAMMA D/O LATE MUDLAGIRIYAPPA W/O MAGADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
2. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA D/O LATE MUDLAGIRIYAPPA, W/O RANGANATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
3. SOWBHAGYAMMA D/O LATE MUDLAGIRIYAPPA, W/O GUDDADA RANGAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT, THIPPEDASARSHALLI VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKUR TALUK.
TUMKURU DISTRICT- 577101.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN B RYAKHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. GANGADHARAIAH S/O LATE. SANNAGOVINDAPPA
Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010645602026 NC: 2026:KHC:53921 WP No. 29456 of 2026
AGED 59 YEARS,
2. THIMMAIAH, S/O LATE. MUDLAIAH @ MUDLAGIRIYAPPA, AGED 81 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/ AT THIPPEDASARAHALLI, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 577 101.
3. NARASAMMA, W/O LATE. CHIKKAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT HOLAVANAHALLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKURU - 577 101.
4. SHIVANNA, SO LATE. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
5. NATARAJU, S/O LATE. NANJAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS,
6. RAVEESHAIAH, S/O LATE. CHANNAPPA, AGED 52 YEARS,
7. GORAMMA, W/O LATE. SHIVARUDRAIAH, AGED 69 YEARS,
R4 TO R7 ARE R/AT BATHSANDRA, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 577 101.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010645602026 NC: 2026:KHC:53921 WP No. 29456 of 2026
8.
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, K.I.A.D.B., MARUTH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, B.H. ROAD, TUMKURU.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.08.2026 IN OS NO. 242/2020 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU VIDE ANNX-F AND FURTHER PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNX-D AND ETC,.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed impugning the order dated 07.08.2026, whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking their impleadment as defendant Nos.7 to 9 in the suit for partition came to be rejected.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ father was cultivating the suit land as a cultivator
- 4 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010645602026 NC: 2026:KHC:53921 WP No. 29456 of 2026
and that, thereafter, the petitioners continued to cultivate the same. It is contended that the petitioners have acquired rights over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. Hence, the petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the suit, particularly when the said property is the subject matter of the partition suit.
3. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order.
4. The suit in O.S. No.242/2020 has been instituted for partition and separate possession. Undoubtedly, the petitioners are not members of the joint family. However, they claim rights over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. The petitioners had earlier instituted O.S. No.341/2018 seeking a declaration of their right by way of adverse possession over the suit schedule property, which came to be dismissed.
5. Moreover, a suit for partition is essentially for determination of the rights of the parties in respect of the joint family properties. A third party claiming an independent right over the suit schedule property has no role to play in such
- 5 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010645602026 NC: 2026:KHC:53921 WP No. 29456 of 2026
proceedings and is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It is well settled that if any third party claims an independent right in respect of the property pursuant to the preliminary decree, it is open to such third party to agitate the same in the final decree proceedings.
6. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application seeking impleadment. No ground is made out for interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35