- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1728 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SAROJAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC.HOUSE WIFE, NOTE. BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN SHIP IS NOT CLAIMED 2. VINOD KUMAR, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. JYOTHI LAKSHMI D/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC.HOUSE WIFE 4. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O LATE NAGHABHUSHAN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC.HOUSE WIFE, NOTE. BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN SHIP IS NOT CLAIME 5. DIVAKAR, S/O LATE NAGHABHUSHAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 6. LAKSHMI, D/O LATE NAGHABHUSHAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 7. LOKESH, S/O LATE NAGHABHUSHAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, P1 TO P7 ARE R/O C/O SANGAM HAIR DRESESS GOPALPUR MAIN ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577501. 8. SHASHIREKHA W/O LATE SHIVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 9. MOHAN, S/O LATE SHIVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 10. JAYASHREE, D/O LATE SHIVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 11. KAVYA, D/O LATE SHIVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 12. DEVIKA, D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, P8 TO P12 ARE R/O C/O SANGAM HAIR DRESESS GOPALPUR MAIN ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577501. 13. MANJUNATH, S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O KONANAHATTI, BESIDE GARADHI MANE BURUJANAHATTI, ALIMOHAL, CHITRADURGA CITY.577501. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 14. NAGAAMMA W/O LATE SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN SHIP IS NOT CLAIMED 15. LOLAKSHAMMA, W/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 16. VENKATESH, S/O SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 17. BHEESHMA, S/O SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 18. DRAKSHAYANI, D/O SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 19. THIPPAMMA D/O SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, P14 TO P19 ARE R/O GONURU (P), CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.577501. 20. BHUJANGARAJ, S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN SHIP IS NOT CLAIMED 21. YASHODHAMMA, W/O PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 22. MANJUNATH, S/O PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 23. RAMANJANEYA, S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 24. JYOTHI, W/O MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 25. NANDAN, S/O MURTHY. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 26. DHARSHAN, S/O MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 27. PADMA, W/O MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, P20 TO P27 ARE R/O MALLAPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577501 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M G.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ERARNMA DEAD BY HER LRS BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE MUDDANNA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RETD POLICE OFFICER AND AGRICULTURE 2. CHANNABASAPPA, S/O LATE MUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 3. GEJJAPPA, S/O LATE MUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R1 TO R3 ARE R/O MALLAPURA GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577501. 4. G. HANUMARITHAPPA, S/O LATE GUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURISTS, 5. NINGAPPA S/O LATE GUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 6. NAGARAJA S/O LATE GUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R4 TO R6 ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/O MALLAPURA GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK.577501. 7. NEELAMMA. W/O CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O MALLANAKATTE VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK.577501. 8. RATHNAMMA W/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O JALIKATTE DEVARAHATTI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK.577501. PALAMMA DEAD BY HER LRS - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 9. S THIPPAMMA W/O LATE PALAIH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O MALLAPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK.577501. 10. S.SURAMMA, W/O LATE NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O MALLAPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK.577501. 11. S. SHARADAMMA, W/O THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O GAJJUGANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK.577522. 12. THIPPESWAMY, S/O LATE SOORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 13. NAGENDRAPPA, S/O LATE SOORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, 14. S.PALAIAH, S/O LATE. SOORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R12 TO R14 ARE R/O OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O MALLAPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK.577501. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING ORDER PASSED BY THE - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHITRADURGA IN O.S.NO.122/2020 DATED 11/11/2025 ON IA.NO.13 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PREMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the impleading applicants in O.S.No.122/2020 is directed against the impugned order dated 11.11.2025 at Annexure-E, whereby the application I.A.No.13 filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment as additional defendant Nos.5 to 31 was rejected by the trial Court by holding as under: “ORDER ON IA.NO.XIII Counsel for proposed defendants no.5 to 31 have filed application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking for impleading them as defendants in this suit. Plaintiff's counsel filed objection for the same. 2. Heard both the counsel for the plaintiff and proposed defendants. Perused materials placed on record. 3. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction against defendant no.1 to 4, claiming themselves as the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, when the case was posted for Cross examination of PW1, the proposed defendants - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 have filed this application seeking permission to get impleaded in the suit. It is submitted that they recently came to know about the pendency of the suit with respect to the suit schedule properties which are the ancestral and joint family properties of proposed defendants. They submitted that the proposed defendants are in joint and constructive possession over the suit property and without their presence the matter cannot be adjudicated. 4. Further it is submitted that Late Bheemappa, son of Gollappa had a wife Hanumakka and they both had 4 sons Halappa. Gollappa, Sharanappa and Ramappa. All the said 4 sons have died leaving behind their respective legal heirs. The proposed defendants are the legal heirs of the said original prepositor Bhimappa, son of Gollappa. The relationship of the parties is claimed to be as shown in the genealogy tree submitted along with the application. They claim that the suit schedule properties are their joint and ancestral properties and they are in joint possession over the same. 5. The schedule properties are situated adjacent to each other and were purchased by alias Kumbalagonte Sannabhimappa Sannabhimappa through a registered sale deed dated 18.07.1950 and all the revenue records stood in his name and he died on 12.10.1968 leaving behind his 4 sons as stated supra. All his four sons were in joint possession and enjoyment over the said suit properties after the death of Gollappa. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 6. It is alleged that plaintiffs and defendants concocted and created false documents without the knowledge of proposed defendants and the said properties are never partitioned among them. Hence they are the necessary parties in this suit and if they are not impleaded great hardship will be caused to them. Hence this petition.4. 7. The plaintiffs counsel filed a detailed objection denying the allegations made by the proposed defendants and submitted that they are not necessary parties to this suit and on the instigation of defendant no.1 to 4, this false petition has been filed just to drag the matter. They are having no locus-standi in this suit and they are not the legal heirs of Bhimappa as stated by them. The entire averments submitted in the affidavit is false and the relationship of the proposed defendants with the deceased Bhimappa is not established not they have produced any document in support of the same. Only on the basis of the Geneology tree which is not acceptable under law they cannot claim themselves as a legal heirs of the deceased. Bheemappa's son of late Gollappa. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendant no.1 to 4 seeking the relief of declaration and injunction with respect to the suit properties. During the pendency of this suit, these proposed defendants after lapse of 5 years have filed this petition for impleading themselves in this suit as being the legal heirs of Bheemappa's son of Gollappa. The Geneology tree submitted by the proposed defendants clearly goes to show that some of the legal heirs of Bhimappa are not included. All the legal heirs of Sannabhimappa, son of Gollappa are not included in this - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 suit. It is admitted that the said Sannabhimappa, son of Gollappa had 4 Halappa, Gollappa, Sharanappa and Ramappa. Some of the legal heirs of Halappa are not included in the suit. Similarly some of the legal heirs of Gollappa, Sharanappa and Ramappa are not the legal heirs of Sharanappa and Ramappa are not made as a party to this suit. 8. I have perused materials placed on record. The suit filed is for the relief of declaration and injunction. Though it is well settled principle of law that in a suit for a declaration defendants can also implead the parties who are necessary for proper for adjudication. In this present case in hand, the proposed defendants themselves have appeared before the court and filed application for impleading themselves in this suit. They claim to be in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, as they are the legal heirs of Sannabhimappa son of Gollappa. The nature of the suit properties claimed as joint family properties. For what reason, all the legal heirs of said Sannabhimappa are not included in this petition is not stated. As per the genelogy submitted by proposed defendants some of the members shown in the same are not party to this petition. 9. Further, it is pertinent to note that in proceedings before District Commissioner related to the suit schedule property, the grandfather of the proposed defendant was one of the contesting party. In the said proceedings similar contentions were raised by proposed defendants, but it was rejected and dismissed the petition for - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 not producing proper documents to show the relationship as claimed by them. The said proceedings were held in the year 2020-2021. After lapse of 5 years, this application has been filed seeking for impleading the said persons as defendants in this suit. 10. Except the copy of said G-tree submitted along with the application, there is no material placed on record by proposed defendants to show that they are the legal heirs of said Bhimappa. For what reason all the legal heirs of the proposed Bhimappa as shown in the said G-tree are not made as a party in this petition is not explained. The order copy of RA-No-36/2021 is not furnished by proposed defendants and they have only produced a notice copy issued in the said proceedings by suppressing relevant order copy. Plaintiff has produced entire order copy of the same, wherein it is clearly stated that the prayer of proposed defendants is rejected. 11. In spite of the said order passed against propposed defendants they have not filed separate suit seeking for appropriate relief against plaintiff or other defendants, though they made several allegations against plaintiff in this suit. Further they have not produced order copy of the same and intentionally suppressed it only by producing notice copy. 12. The sale deed is of the year 27.12.1969 Which is seriously disputed by proposed defendants but they have not filed any suit till date. After lapse of 5 years this impleading application has been filed. So it can be gathered - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 that only to drag the matter this application is filed and no proper reasons showed by them to get impleaded in this suit. There are no grounds made out by proposed defendants that their presence in this suit is necessary for proper adjudication. Hence this Court finds no grounds to allow the petition and to implead the said proposed defendants in this suit. If they are impleaded in this suit, the scope of the suit will be enlarged rather than fare adjudication of the matter. 13. If the proposed defendants rights are curtailed, they are at liberty to file a suit seeking remedy against defend ants. But in the suit filed by plaintiff, they cannot get impleaded to seek their relief making allegations as submitted in the application. Hence no grounds made out by proposed defendants to get impleaded in this suit. Accordingly, I pass the following; ORDER The petition filed by proposed defendant no.5 to 31 as IA.No.13 is hereby rejected.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondents is dispensed with. 3. As can be seen from the impugned order, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioners- plaintiffs, who claim independent title, interest and possession over the suit - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 schedule properties cannot seek impleadment by compelling the plaintiffs in this regard especially when the plaintiff is a dominus litis and has opposed such impleadment as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments including the case of M/s. J.N. Real Estates Vs. Shailendra Pradhan – 2025 INSC 611 and NAK Engineering Co. Ltd Vs. Tasun Keshrichand & ors – 2026 INSC 8. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has come to the incorrect conclusion that the petitioners were entitled to file one more suit without appreciating that the petitioner has already instituted a suit in O.S.No.37/2023, which is pending adjudication before the trial Court. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had already instituted one more suit in O.S.No.37/2023 against all the parties to the present suit is yet another circumstance, which is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioners would be entitled to ventilate their grievances in the said suit and the question of impleading the petitioners as additional defendants in the present suit would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court refusing impleadment cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to have resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam and Ors Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan and Ors. Vs. Muthalammal and Ors – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali Vs. V. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) It is however made clear that any judgment, order, decree, compromise etc., in O.S.No.122/2020 would not be binding upon the petitioners nor affect their claim over the suit schedule property nor affect their rights and contentions in O.S.No.37/2023. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5822 WP No. 1728 of 2026 iii) All rival contentions between the parties on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14