- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2419 WP No. 26059 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 26059 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.G. M. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE K. MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT VOKKALERI VILLAGE, VOKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT VOKKALERI VILLAGE, VOKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VISWESWARAIAH S., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR, IN P AND SC. NO. 18/2024, PASSED ON IA-2, UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 AND READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AND CONSEQUENTLY TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR, IN P AND SC. NO. 18/2024, PASSED ON IA-2, UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 AND READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, BY DISMISSING THE IA-2, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2419 WP No. 26059 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the petitioner in P&SC No.18/2024 is directed against the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the application, I.A.No.II filed by the respondent under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of the petitioner herein as respondent was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner filed the instant P&SC No.18/2024 seeking issuance/grant of probate in his favour in pursuance of the registered Will dated 13.11.2000 said to have been executed by Yarramma. The respondent herein filed impleadment application inter alia contending that he was the adopted son of Yarramma and Munishamappa and that the respondent would be entitled to contest the said P&SC proceedings and oppose the request for grant of probate made by the petitioner. By the impugned order, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2419 WP No. 26059 of 2025 the Trial Court came to be conclusion that the question/issue as regards the alleged Will dated 13.11.2000 as propounded by the petitioner and alleged adoption as contended by the respondent would necessary have to be decided by the Trial Court after a full fledged trial and the respondent, who claims to be the adopted son of Yarramma was entitled to contest the probate proceedings by participating in such proceedings by getting himself impleaded as a respondent. While arriving at such conclusion, the Trial Court held as under: “The learned counsel for the applicant has filed I.A. No.II U/O.I Rule 10 of CPC seeking him to implead as proposed respondent in this case. 2. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that one K.Munishamappa S/o. Late Kadirappa who is resident of Vokkaleri village and Hobli, Kolar had no issues. Narayanappa and his wife Munivenkatamma resident of Anjiganahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivaspura Taluk had five children. N.K. Munishamappa and his wife Yarramma having no children had adopted the applicant as their foster son on 06.08.1965 as per the Adoption Deed, when he was 11 years old and he had completed his studies in 5th standard at Government School, Vokkaleri village. In the school records his father's name is entered as Narayanappa and guardian is Munishami. Hence, he is the legal heir and successor of deceased N.K. Munishamappa and Yarramma. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2419 WP No. 26059 of 2025 The petitioner had suppressed the real facts and filed this case before the court by creating the Will behind his back. Hence, he is voluntarily impleading himself as party to this petition as respondent. All the documents are standing in the name of N.K. Munishamappa in respect of the property. Hence, for effective adjudication, his impleadment is required, hence sought to allow the application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed objection to the said application and contended that, this application is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. The applicant has sworn all false facts in his affidavit in support of his application. The petition averments may kindly be read as part and parcel of this objections. The applicant is no way concerned to K.Munishamappa and Yarramma and he is not their adopted son, in spite of that, he has created documents in his name and filed this false and frivolous application only with an intention to knock off the petition schedule property which belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that, earlier the applicant has filed suit against the petitioner on the basis of false and fabricated documents in respect of the petition schedule property before the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Kolar in O.S.No. 150/2022 for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. In that suit also, the applicant herein has contended that, he is the adopted son of K. Munishamappa and Yarramma but along with the suit he had not produced any single document to show that, he is their adopted son. Subsequently the petitioner herein who was the defendant in that suit had filed application - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2419 WP No. 26059 of 2025 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, thereafter the applicant herein who was the plaintiff in that suit has withdrawn the said suit as such dismissed as not pressed. The applicant has filed this frivolous application, even though he has no right over the petition schedule property. Hence, the application filed by the applicant is not maintainable. If the application is allowed, then the petitioner will be put to great hardship and injury. On the other hand, if the application is dismissed no harm or hardship will be caused to the applicant. 4. Heard arguments. 5. The following points arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the applicant herein is proper and necessary party to the present proceedings? 2. Whether the IA filed U/0.1 Rule 10 of C.P.C by the applicant deserves consideration? 3. What order? 6. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: As per final order for the following: REASONS 7. POINTS NO.1 & 2: Both the points are interconnected with each other, in order to avoid repetition of facts, they are taken up together for common discussion. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2419 WP No. 26059 of 2025 The present petition is filed by the petitioner for issuance of probate in his favour in pursuance of the registered Will executed by Yarramma W/o. K. Munishamappa dated 13.11.2000. The applicant herein has filed the present application to implead him in the present proceedings as he is the foster son of Yarramma and K.Munishamappa. He has produced xerox copies of Admission Register Extract, Admission Extract, G-Tree. Adoption Deed, which show that, Munishami is the guardian of the applicant. Yarramma and K.Munishamappa had adopted the applicant as their son. On perusal of the G-Tree, it shows that, the applicant is the one of the family member of the testator. The petitioner by colluding with others have created the Will. When the very execution of Will by the testator is questioned by the applicant herein, for effective adjudication of the matter in dispute, the impleadment of applicant is necessary. Therefore, the application filed by the applicant deserves consideration. Accordingly, the points for consideration is answered in the Affirmative. 8. POINT NO.3:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER IA filed U/0.1 Rule 10 R/w.Sec. 151 of CPC., filed by the applicant is allowed. The proposed applicant is ordered to be impleaded in the petition as respondent. The petitioner is hereby directed to carry out amendment and to file amended petition.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2419 WP No. 26059 of 2025 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that having regard to the fact that the respondent claims to be the adopted son of Yarramma, whose Will is sought to be probated, mere withdrawal of suit in O.S.No.150/2022 filed by the respondent before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar, cannot be made a basis to come to the conclusion that the respondent would not be entitled to oppose or contest grant of probate in the instant P&SC No.18/2024 and oppose the claim of the petitioner and as such, the said contention urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted. At any rate, all rival contentions including the contention regarding alleged Will dated 13.11.2000 executed by Yarramma in favour of the petitioner and the alleged adoption of respondent by Yarramma would necessarily have to be decided by the Trial Court only after a full fledged trial. 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2419 WP No. 26059 of 2025 the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. 6. It is also relevant to state that upon the respondent filing Statement of Objections to the probate proceedings, the petitioner would be entitled to file his rejoinder/reply to the same and contest the claim of the respondent and as such, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. All rival contentions 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 BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82