- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3708 WP No. 29857 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.29857 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. T. H. M. VEERESH S/O LATE T.H.M. KOTRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.3531/119A, KEDARANATHA, BALAJI NAGAR, KUNDWADA ROAD, DAVANGERE – 577 006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. T. J. JAYANTHI W/O T.S.JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS HOMEMAKER 2. SMT.T.H.M.SUDHA W/O LATE T.H.M MUKTHINATH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HOMEMAKER. 3. SRI.T.H.M KIRAN S/O LATE T.H.M MUKTHINATH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ENGINEER. 4. SRI.T.H.M YASHWANTH S/O LATE T.H.M MUKTHINATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN (PROPOSED PLAINTIFF NO. 2 TO 4 ARE R/O: DOOR NO.3790, KEDARNATHA 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS, ‘B’ BLOCK S.S. LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE) Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3708 WP No. 29857 of 2025 5. SMT. T.H.M. ASHWINI, D/O LATE T.H.M MUKTHINATH W/O ARUN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, GAY NO.56-62, SUNSHINE JOY DRIVE PAID ROAD, PIRANGUT, MAHARASHTRA-412 115. 6. SMT. USHA W/O THIPPESWAMY T.M AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NO.856/5, UMA VISHWA SADANA, 3RD CROSS BEHIND MAGNUR PETROL BUNK, SHIVAKUAMARASWAMY LAYOUT, HADADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE 577 005. 7. SMT.SHOBHA, W/O MATHAD CHANNABASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. HOSAKEREMATHAD MANE JAGALURU. 8. SMT. LATHA W/O RAVIKUMAR KURUDIMATH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO.3992/132, 16TH CROSS, OPP. NUTANA COLLEGE, ANJANEYA BADAVANE, DAVANGERE – 577 004. 9. SMT. UMA W/O K.M.KOTRESH KURUDIMATH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OPP.NUTANA COLLEGE, ANJANEYA BADAVANE, DAVANGERE – 577 004. 10. HALASWAMY @ HALESH PATEL, BASAVAIAH PATEL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS D.NO. 167,10TH CROSS, NEAR SRI ANNAPURNESHWARI TEMPLE, BEHIND POOJA HOTEL, D.DEVARAJURS LAYOUT, DAVANGERE – 577 006. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3708 WP No. 29857 of 2025 11. SMT. MALALL PATIL W/O SURESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2ND FLOOR, D.NO.4292/14.17TH CROSS, SHIVAGANGA NILAYA, OPP. NUTANA COLLEGE, ANJANEVA BADAVANE DAVANGERE 577 004. 12. SMT PUTTAMMA W/O RAJASHEKARAIAH RAGHAVANKAMATH, SINCE DECEASED HER LR'S ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD 13. GANGADHAR PRASAD RAGHAVANKAMATH S/O LATE RAJASHEKHARAIAH. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, DOOR NO. 1/1, MAHARAJ PET, BETHUR ROAD, DAVANAGERE – 577 002. 14. SUNITHA W/O BASAVARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D.NO. 1. NEAR DEVANAGARI GAS GODOWN, KONDAJJI ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. 15. RAJENDRA PRASAD RAGHAVANKAMATH S/O LATE RAJASHEKHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, KALAL BEEDI, HONDAD CIRCLE, SULTAN PET, DAVANAGERE – 577 001. 16. SMT. G.BHARATHI W/O GANGADARAIAH CHAPARADALLIMATH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NEAR LUCKY AI MART, MEDLERIRAOD, RANEBENNUR – 581 115. 17. GIRISH M.P.M. S/O M.P.M MHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO 1645/C, STATIONERY SHOP, OLDBETHUR ROAD, DAVANGERE – 577 001. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3708 WP No. 29857 of 2025 18. SMT. VIJAY M.P.M W/O BASAVARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 1ST ‘B’ CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGARA, NEAR SWEET FACTORY, BEHIND LIC OFFICE,P.B. ROAD, DAVANGERE – 577 006. 19. NATARAJ M.P.M S/O,M.P.MMAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D.NO.65,2ND FLOOR, GOPINATH NIVAS, 4TH TEMPLE STREET, 15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-03 20. SMT. VEENA M.P.M W/O MANJUNATHA KENGALAHALLIMATH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HALIWANA VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK – 577 530. 21. VEERESH M.P.M S/O M.P.M NHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO. 1645/C, STATIONERY SHOP, OLD BETHUR ROAD, DAVANGERE 577 001. 22. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O K.G.MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, D.NO. 167, 10TH CROSS, NEAR SRI. ANNAPURNESHWARI TEMPLE, BEHIND POOJA HOTEL, D. DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE – 577 006. 23. B.P.MAHARAJ S/O BELALAGERE PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS AGRICULTURALIST DEVARABELAKERE , HARIHAR TQ DAVANGERE (D) 577 601. …RESPONDENTS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3708 WP No. 29857 of 2025 THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ON I.A.NO. 15, FILED UNDER ORDER 1, RULE 10(2) OF C.P.C., DATED 25/07/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. DAVANAGERE IN O.S.NO. 163/2019, THE COPY OF WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G WHEREBY THE APPLICATION WAS ALLOWED, AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE I.A.NO. 15 FILED BY THE PROPOSED PLAINTIFF IN O.S. NO. 163/2019 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. DAVANAGERE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “ i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari there by quashing the impugned orders I.A.No.15, filed under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of C.P.C., dated: 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M, Davanagere in O.S.No.163/2019, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-G whereby the application was allowed, and consequently be pleased to dismiss the I.A.No.15 filed by the proposed plaintiff in O.S.No.163/2019 on the file of Prl.Senior Civil judge and C.J.M, Davanagere in the interest of justice and equity. ii) Issued such other relief and further relief as are deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3708 WP No. 29857 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant No.1 and respondent No.23-defendant No.2 for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, respondent Nos.2 to 22 filed the instant application, I.A.No.15 seeking impleadment as additional parties to the suit on the ground that they were also family members and were entitled to their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties and that they both are proper and necessary parties to the suit. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I.A.No.15 and permitting the impleading applicants to come on record as additional defendant Nos.3 to 20 in the suit by leaving open all rival contentions urged by all parties to be decided on merits and in accordance with law. While arriving at such conclusion, the Trial Court held as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3708 WP No. 29857 of 2025 “ORDER ON IA NO. 15 FILED U/O 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC The counsel for applicants No.2 to 21 filed present application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Sec.151 of CPC and prays to implead the applicants No.2 to 21 as plaintiff No.2 to 21 in the present suit as mentioned in the application. Along with the application the proposed plaintiff No.2 filed her affidavit and stated that, the plaintiff No.1 filed another suit bearing No. 164/2019 for partition and separate possession, wherein the deponent and other proposed plaintiffs are made as defendant No.2 to 19. The plaintiff deliberately not brought other legal-heirs, coparceners of late Rachotaiah in the present case. The proposed plaintiffs during the coparceners of late Rachotaiah, they are also entitle for share in the family properties. Therefore, they are the necessary parties in the present case and hence, prays to allow the application. 2. On the other hand plaintiff opposed the application by filing objection and denied the entire averments made by the plaintiff and application is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further, contended that the plaintiff is one for partition alleging that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of her deceased father and hence, plaintiff herself and the defendant is entitle to equal share over the same. Hence, the proposed applicants are neither co-owners nor coparceners of the parties and the proposed applicants are not entitle to any share in the properties and as such they are not necessary parties to adjudicate the matter in issue. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3708 WP No. 29857 of 2025 Further, the proposed applicants have no locus-standi to file the present application and proposed applicants by suppressing the true and material facts and on other grounds prays for dismissal of the application. Further, defendant No.1 also opposed the application by filing objection. In the objection the defendant No.1 denied the entire affidavit contents of proposed plaintiff No.2, which is annexed to the present application and on other grounds prays for dismissal of the application. 3. Heard arguments on both the parties and perused thematerials placed on record. The proposed plaintiffs filed written argument on the IA. On perusal of the same the points that would arise for consideration are as follows: 1. Whether the proposed petitioner proves that they are the necessary parties to the adjudication of the present suit? 2. What order? 4. My findings on the above points are as under; Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2 : As per final Order, for the following: R E A S O N S 5. Point No.1 :- This is suit filed for the relief of partition and separate possession over the suit schedule property. During the course of proceedings present application is filed by proposed plaintiffs. It is worth to note that, a necessary parties are one, in whose absence the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3708 WP No. 29857 of 2025 court cannot pass an effective decree at all. Proper parties are one whose presence before court is necessary to ensure that all matter in dispute are effectually or completely determine. Moreover as per the contention of the applicants they are the coparceners of deceased Rachotaiah and the they are also entitled for share in the suit schedule properties, also it is stated by the applicants that they are the parties in OS No.164/2019 which is filed the plaintiff for the relief of partition and for separate possession. Said factors not denied by the plaintiff and defendant No.1. As per the plaint averments one late Sri. T.H.M.Rachotaiah was the propositors of the family. Under the circumstance all the successors of said Rachotaiah are the necessary parties to the present suit, as the suit is one for partition and for separate possession. Therefore, the present applicants are the proper and necessary parties to the present proceedings. However, it is just and proper to arrayed them as defendants rather than the plaintiffs for the sake of convenience. It is worth to note that though in the application and affidavit it is refereed as propose plaintiff No.2 to 21, but in the cause title of the application here it is mentioned only proposed plaintiff No.2 to 19. Therefore, it is just and proper to allow the application with respect to applicant No.2 to 19. Accordingly I answered point No.1 in the affirmative. 6. Point No.2:- For the reasons stated above and on the basis of above findings, I proceed to pass the following:- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3708 WP No. 29857 of 2025 ORDER Interim Application No.15 filed by the applicant No.2 to 19 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Sec.151 of C.P.C. is hereby allowed. Further plaintiff is hereby directed to implead the proposed applicant No.2 to 19 as defendant No.3 to 20 by way of amending in the cause title of the plaint as mentioned in the application. To carryout the amendment and to file amended plaint.” 4. In my considered opinion, having regard to the material on record and the averments made by the impleading applicants in the impleadment application and accompanying affidavit, the Trial Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the impleading applicants were both proper and necessary parties to the suit and the impugned order is in conformity/consonance with the well settled principles of law governing addition of parties as held by the Apex Court and this Court in various judgments including the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of J.N. Real Estate Vs. Shailendra Pradhan – (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1015. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3708 WP No. 29857 of 2025 5. Upon re-appreciation, reconsideration and re-evaluation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by 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 Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. In any event, since the Trial Court has not adverted to nor recorded any findings on the merit/demerits of the rival contentions nor expressed any opinion on the alleged claim of the impleading applicants or passed any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, who was a defendant and not the plaintiff, especially when all rival contentions between the petitioner, plaintiffs and impleading applicants would have to be decided by the Trial Court in the suit after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all parties. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3708 WP No. 29857 of 2025 order and by leaving/keeping open all rival contentions between the parties on merits to be decided by the Trial Court. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV/BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 54