- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2717 WP No. 18726 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 18726 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT GANGAMMA DAUGHTERE OF LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDIDNG AT 204 MADDURAMMA LAYOUT SRIGANDHAKAVAL, SUNKADAKATTE BANGALORE - 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PUNITH C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. THIMMAMMA WIFE OF LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT 204 MADDURAMMA LAYOUT SRIGANDHAKAVAL, SUNKADAKATTE BANGALORE - 560 091. 2. SRI VENKATESH SON OF LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESDIING AT 204, MADDURAMMA LAYOUT SRIGANDHAKAVAL, SUNKADAKATTE BANGALORE - 560 091. 3. SRI GOVIND SON OF LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT 204, MADDURAMMA LAYOUT SRIGANDHAKAVAL, SUNKADAKATTE BANGALORE 560 091. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2717 WP No. 18726 of 2024 4. SMT. PADMA WIFE OF VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT 204, MADDURAMMA LAYUT SRIGANDHAKAVAL SUNKADAKATTE BANGALROE 560 091. AND ALSO AT DASANAPURA VILLAGE TARIKERE POST KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572130. 5. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR SON OF VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS RESIDING AT 204, MADDURAMMA LAYUT SRIGANDHAKAVAL, SUNKADAKATTE BANGALROE 560 091 AND ASLO AT DASANPURA VILLAGE TARIKERE POST KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572130 SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER SMT. PADMA 6. SRI RAVIKUMAR SON OF VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS RESDING AT 204 MADDURAMMA LAYOUT SRIGANDHAKAVAL, SUNKADAKATTE BANGALORE 560 091 AND ALSO AT DASANAPURA VILLAGE TARIKERE POST, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572130 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2717 WP No. 18726 of 2024 SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER SMT. PADMA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-6 (R-5 & R-6 MINORS REPRESENTED BY R-4) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27/04/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-D PASSED IN OS NO. 200/2021 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL ON IA NO. 4 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE-B FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THEREBY ORDER TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.200/2021 is directed against the impugned order dated 27.04.2024, whereby the application I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC seeking impleadment of respondents 4 to 6 was rejected by the trial court. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents 1 to 3-defendants 1 to 3 for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2717 WP No. 18726 of 2024 properties. The cause title of the plaint will clearly indicate that the petitioner is the daughter of defendant No.1 – respondent No.1 and respondents 2 and 3 – defendants 2 and 3 are the children of defendant No.1 and defendants are contesting the suit. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner-plaintiff filed the instant application seeking impleadment of the wife and children of defendant No. 2 on the ground that the defendant No. 2 had executed a gift deed in their favour and as such, they were proper and necessary parties to the suit. The said application having been opposed by the respondents, the trial Court proceeded to reject the application on the ground that the proposed defendants could be added during the final decree proceedings and as such, it was not necessary to implead them as additional defendants in the suit. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is the specific contention of the petitioner that prior to institution of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2717 WP No. 18726 of 2024 suit on 10.12.2021, defendant No.2 had executed the gift deed in favour of the proposed defendants 4 to 6 in relation to the Sy.No.146/5B and Sy.No.146/5C of K.H.Halli Village, which is described as Item Nos. 11 and 12 of the plaint schedule properties. It follows therefrom that since the proposed defendants 4 to 6 are alleged to be pre-suit alienees in respect of Item Nos. 11 and 12 of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the alleged gift deed said to have been executed by defendant No. 2 who is undisputedly a party to the suit, the presence of proposed defendants 4 to 6, who are none other than his wife and children would clearly be necessary and essential for the purpose of adjudication of issues in controversy between the parties and in the absence of the proposed defendants 4 to 6, there cannot be effective and proper adjudication of the suit. 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court misdirected itself in rejecting the impleadment application without appreciating that the proposed defendants no. 4 to 6 were both proper and necessary parties to the suit and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application for impleadment deserves to be allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2717 WP No. 18726 of 2024 6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 27.04.2024 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.N0.200/2021 by the trial court is hereby set aside. (iii) I.A.No.4 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC is hereby allowed. (iv) Petitioner is directed to implead respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as additional defendants Nos. 4 to 6 to the suit. (v) Petitioner to carry out necessary amendment and file amended plaint on the next date of hearing of the suit before the trial Court. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of defendants 4 to 6 to file written statement to the amended plaint and contest the suit on all aspects of the matter. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.