- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20837 W.P. No.3666/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3666/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. N. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S/O R. NANJUNDAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 2. SRI. N. NAGARAJA S/O R. NANJUNDAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MADDERI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI KOLAR TALUK 563101. 3. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O GOWDANAHALLI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT KALKERE VILLAGE BELMARANAHALLI POST NARASAPURA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DIST 563133. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. N. NANJUNDAGOWDA S/O LATE P.V. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT MADDERI VILLAGE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20837 W.P. No.3666/2022 VEMGAL HOBLI KOLAR TALUK 563101. 2. KUM. CHANDRAKALA D/O LATE KESHAVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 3. MR. SUKESH S/O LATE KESHAVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS. 4. MR. SUJAY S/O LATE KESHAVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS. 5. SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O LATE KESHAVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KONDALAVALAHALLI DAPPARTHI POST, GUDIBANDA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST 561209. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESWARA N.R. & SRI. H.S. SANGEETHA, ADVS., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:01.08.2022 NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 ARE D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR ON THE FILE OF FDP NO.1/2015 IN ORDER DTD.24.1.2022 ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF IA UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE SAID I.A. AS PRAYED FOR IN THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE SAID I.A. & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20837 W.P. No.3666/2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.01.2022 passed in F.D.P.No.1/2015 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. Sri.Raghavendra K., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1-plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.137/2003 for partition and separate possession, which was decreed. The appeal filed by respondent No.1 in R.A.No.224/2012 was dismissed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, (for short, 'the First Appellate Court') and thereafter the Regular Second Appeal in RSA No.1721/2015 filed by petitioner No.1- plaintiff also came to be dismissed. It is submitted that the father of the petitioners initiated the FDP proceedings and during the pendency of the said proceedings, he has died. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 herein filed an application - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20837 W.P. No.3666/2022 to transpose himself as petitioner in the FDP proceedings on the ground that he has purchased Item No.2 of the suit schedule property and he has a right to seek partition under the deceased father of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the trial Court in a preliminary decree, has recorded a clear finding that the alleged sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff and when such a finding is recorded by the trial Court, which has attained finality, the trial Court has committed an error in allowing the purchaser to transpose himself as petitioner in FDP No.1/2015 and the same was uncalled for and such an application ought to have been rejected. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Jagadeeshwara N.R., learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the trial Court, First Appellate Court, as well as this Court in RSA No.1721/2015 has clearly recorded the finding that the purchaser i.e., respondent No.1 herein, has to work out his equities in the final decree proceedings from the share - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20837 W.P. No.3666/2022 allotted to the father of the plaintiff. After the death of the father of the plaintiff, who initiated the FDP proceedings, an application is filed by respondent No.1 to transpose as petitioner in the FDP proceedings, which was rightly allowed by the trial Court and hence, there is no scope to interfere with the said order. 4. I heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner No.1-plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.137/2003 for partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 31.08.2012 by allotting 1/5th share to the parties to the suit except defendant No.4 i.e., respondent No.1 herein, who was the purchaser of the suit schedule property. The trial Court in para No.19 has observed that the defendant No.1 in the suit has sold Item No.2 of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20837 W.P. No.3666/2022 suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 and the defendant No.2 has also signed the sale deed at Ex.D8 as an attesting witness; however, the said sale deed is not binding on the share of the plaintiff and proceeded to allot 1/5th share to the plaintiff. 6. It is required to be noticed that the purchaser i.e., respondent No.1 herein has challenged the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.137/2003 in R.A.No.224/2012 and the first appellate Court in para No.19 has held that the defendant No.4 i.e., respondent No.1 herein, claims equity and for allotment of property purchased by him to the share of defendant No.1, which he has to work out in the Final Decree Proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said finding, the petitioner - original plaintiff has filed RSA No.1721/2015 before this Court and this Court vide judgment dated 13.07.2016 dismissed the said RSA No.1721/2015 by affirming the finding with regard to the rights of the purchaser. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20837 W.P. No.3666/2022 7. It is to be noticed that the father of the petitioner, who was defendant No.1 in O.S.No.137/2003, initiated FDP proceedings in FDP No.1/2015 and during the pendency of the said FDP proceedings, he passed away on 19.11.2019. The respondent No.1 herein, who was defendant No.4 in the suit, filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to transpose himself as a petitioner in the FDP proceedings. The said application was allowed by the trial Court. 8. It is to be noticed that after the death of the petitioner in FDP No.1/2015 i.e., the father of the petitioners herein; the petitioners herein, whose rights have been determined in the suit, have failed to file any application to come on record as legal heirs nor have they initiated any FDP proceedings. 9. The respondent No.1 herein i.e., defendant No.4 in the suit, has sought transposition to work out his rights recognized in the suit and in the first appeal, which - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20837 W.P. No.3666/2022 is affirmed in the second appeal, and the said application came to be allowed by the trial Court in the FDP proceedings by recording a clear finding that the right to continue the proceedings survive. I do not find any error in the said finding recorded by the trial Court. 10. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners as to whether after the death of the father of the plaintiff, respondent No.1 would get any right is concerned, the said aspect is required to be gone into by the trial Court and any finding recorded by this Court in the present proceedings would amount to prejudging the issue. 11. With the above observation, I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court in the FDP proceedings calling for interference in this petition. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and same is hereby rejected. It is made clear that the observations made in this petition are restricted to the lis between the parties before - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20837 W.P. No.3666/2022 this Court. The trial Court shall consider the FDP proceedings on its merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24