- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2704 WP No. 24031 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. 24031 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MASTER SANJAY SON OF RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, RESIDING AT HULIVANA VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 142 REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER SMT. GEETHA WIFE OF RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT HULIVANA VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 142. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PUNITH C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUMARI HARSHITHA DAUGHTER OF LATE GANGADHAR.H.L, CARE OF RAMESH.R AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT 88, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD MAIN ROAD, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, HEROHALLI MAIN ROAD, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE – 560 091. 2. KUMARI.POSHITHA. G DAUGHTER OF LATE GANGADHAR.H.L, CARE OF RAMESH.R, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT .88, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD MAIN ROAD, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, HEROHALLI MAIN ROAD, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE - 560 091. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2704 WP No. 24031 of 2024 3. SRI. LAKKANNA, SON OF LATE MAGADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT HULIVANA VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 142. 4. SRI.DEVARAJU, SON OF LAKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT HULIVANA VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 142. 5. SRI.RANGASWAMY, SON OF LAKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT HULIVANA VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 142. 6. SMT.GOWRAMMA, DAUGHTER OF LAKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT HULIVANA VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 142. 7. SMT. BHAGAYAMMA, WIFE OF LAKSHMANAM DAUGHTER OF LAKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUDUKADAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 227. 8. SMT. MAGADAMMA, WIFE OF GOVINDAIAH, DAUGHTER OF LAKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2704 WP No. 24031 of 2024 RESIDING AT MUDIGERESHETTYPALYA, TUVEKERE POST, YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 9. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (CA), HASSAN-BANGALORE RAILWAY LINE TUMAKURU – 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVIKUMARA B R, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2 VIDE ORDER DATED: 02.09.2024 NOTICE TO R-3 TO R-9 IS D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 22.04.2024 AS PER ANNX-A PASSED IN O.S.NO. 16/2018 BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL ON I.A.NO. 10 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) CPC AS PER ANNX-C 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 impleading applicant is directed against the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed on I.A.No.10 in O.S.No.16/2018 pending on the file of the Addl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigkal, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner-impleading applicant seeking impleadment as a legatee under the alleged registered Will dated 24.03.2018 said to have been executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in his favour was rejected by the trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2704 WP No. 24031 of 2024 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against respondent Nos.3 to 9 - defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. In the said suit, one Lakkanna was arrayed as defendant No. 1, while his wife Smt. Giriyamma was arrayed as defendant No. 2. Upon the demise of defendant No. 1 Lakanna and defendant No. 2 – Smt. Giriyamma, the petitioner- impleading applicant sought impleadment as a legatee under the registered Will dated 24.03.2018 alleged to have been executed in favour of the petitioner-impleading applicant during their lifetime. The said impleading application was opposed by the plaintiffs, who disputed and denied the said Will dated 24.03.2018 propounded by the petitioner. By the impugned order, the trial Court proceeded to reject the application I.A.No.10 and declined to implead the petitioner as an additional defendant No. 9 to the suit and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the material on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2704 WP No. 24031 of 2024 4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court failed to consider and appreciate that the issue as regards legality, validity, execution, attestation, genuineness, correctness etc., of the alleged Will dated 24.03.2018 would necessarily have to be decided by the trial Court after permitting both sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence and not at the stage of considering the application for impleadment, which deserved to be allowed, by keeping open all rival contentions between the parties as regards the alleged Will. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application for impleadment without appreciating that having regard to the specific contention of the petitioner that he is one of the legal representative of defendants 1 and 2 by virtue of the alleged Will dated 24.03.2018, he was both proper and necessary party to the suit and all questions as regards execution of Will would have to be decided by giving an opportunity in this regard to all parties. 5. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2704 WP No. 24031 of 2024 (ii) The impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed on I.A.No.10 in O.S.N0.16/2018 by the trial court is hereby set aside. (iii) I.A.No.10 is hereby allowed for the limited purpose of permitting the petitioner to participate in the suit. (iv) All rival contentions between the parties regarding genuineness, execution, attestation, legality, validity, correctness etc., of the alleged Will dated 24.03.2018 are kept open to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file written statement and contest the suit on merits. (vi) The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.