- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3373 WP No. 34759 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. 34759 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. CHANAREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SON OF LATE MR. RAMA REDDY, RESIDING AT NO. 772, OPP. TO AKN HOSPITAL, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DECLYN GOMES, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. THIMMAKKA, DAUGHTER OF LATE MR. NYATHAPPA WIFE OF LATE MR. ANNAIAH REDDY, SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY LRs. MR. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, SON OF LATE MR. RAMAIAH REDDY, RESIDING AT NO. 60, KACHARAKANAHALLI THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE – 560 084 MRS. SUSHEELAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MRS. THIMAKKA RESIDING AT CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 125 SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY LRS. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3373 WP No. 34759 of 2025 2. NAGARAJ SON OF LATE GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI SAINAGARA LAYOUT, SITE NO. 40, KACHANAYAKANAHALLI, DINNE NEAR AKEMI INDUSTRY, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU – 560 105 3. MRS. SHANTHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE MRS. THIMAKKA RESIDING AT JIGANI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106 4. MRS. ANUSUYA WIFE OF RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 106, 18TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, N.S. PALYA, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 076 5. MS. KUSUMA DAUGHTER OF RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 106, 18TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR N.S. PALYA, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 076 6. MASTER SAGAR SON OF RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS SINCE 1(H) IS MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN ANUSUYA RESIDING AT NO. 106, 18TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, N.S. PALYA, B T M LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 076 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3373 WP No. 34759 of 2025 7. MRS. KANKARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE MR. KRISHNA REDDY RESIDING AT DODDAKANNELI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 087 MRS. AKKAMMA WIFE OF LATE MR. MUNISWAMYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LR's 8. MR. M. ASHOK SON OF MR. MUNISHAMAPPA AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT ANNASANDRAPALYA, HAL POST, BANGALORE – 560 008. 9. MR. M. CHANDRA AGED MAJOR, SON OF MR. MUNISHAMAPPA. RESIDING AT ANNASANDRAPALYA, HAL POST, BANGALORE – 560 008. 10. MRS. AMMAYAMMA AGED MAJOR, DAUGHTER LATE MR. MUNISHAMAPPA, RESIDING AT ANNASANDRAPALYA, HAL POST, BANGALORE – 560 008. 11. MRS. SUSHEELA AGED MAJOR, DAUGHTER OF LATE MR. MUNISHAMAPPA, RESIDING AT ANNASANDRAPALYA, HAL POST, BANGALORE – 560 008. 12. MRS. GOWRAMMA AGED MAJOR, DAUGHTER OF LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, RESIDING AT ANNASANDRAPALYA, HAL POST, BANGALORE – 560 008 13. MRS. RATHNAMMA. AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE MR. PAPAIAH REDDY - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3373 WP No. 34759 of 2025 DAUGHTER OF LATE MRS. THIMMAKKA AND MR. ANNAIAH REDDY, RESIDING AT NO. 71, 3RD CROSS, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, DODDABANASAVADI, BANGALORE – 560 043 14. MR. RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SON OF LATE MRS. THIMMAKKA AND MR. ANNAIAH REDDY RESIDING AT NO. 105, KRISHNARAJU LAYOUT, 7TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, N.S. PALYA, BANGALORE – 560 076 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. A. DEVANAND, ADVOCATEC/R5; SRI. R. KALYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (VAKALATH FILED)) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A NO. 1/25 IN O.S. NO. 7533/2008, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH 39, AT BANGALORE (ANNEXURE A) AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW I.A. NO. 1/25 AND IMPLEAD THE PETITIONER AS DEFENDANT NO. 5 IN O.S. NO. 7533/2008. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 in I.A.No.1/2025 on the file of the XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is directed against the impugned order dated 23.10.2025, whereby the said application filed by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3373 WP No. 34759 of 2025 petitioner/impleading applicant seeking impleadment as Additional Defendant No.5 to the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent Nos.1 to 6 - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against respondent Nos.7 to 14 for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties. In this context, a perusal of the plaint will indicate that the plaintiff contends that she was the daughter of one Nyathappa, who had 4 children – Thimmakka (plaintiff), Akkamma (defendant No.2) Munithayamma and Krishna Reddy (since dead whose wife Kanakarathnamma was arrayed as defendant No.1). It is an undisputed fact that the said Muniyamma alias Munithayamma expired prior to institution of the suit and the plaintiff contended that the said Munithayamma did not leave any other heirs or legal representatives other than the parties to the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3373 WP No. 34759 of 2025 4. After conclusion of trial and at the stage of final arguments, the petitioner filed the instant application seeking impleadment on the ground that he was the adopted son of late Munithayamma, who had died prior to the suit and had not been impleaded as a party to the suit. In the trial Court, only the plaintiff Nos.1(a) and 1(e) filed objections to the said impleadment application while the remaining parties did not oppose the said impleadment application. In their objections, the said plaintiff Nos.1(a) and 1(e) disputed the alleged relationship of the petitioner with Munithayamma and contended that the petitioner was not entitled to get impleaded since he was not a family member. After hearing both sides, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.1/2025 on the ground that the petitioner had not produced a registered adoption deed in support of his claim. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.1/2025, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate the various documents produced by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3373 WP No. 34759 of 2025 petitioner along with a memo dated 23.08.2025 in support of the application for impleadment claiming to be the alleged adopted son of Smt. Munithayamma, who is undisputedly the daughter of Nyathappa and sister of plaintiff-Thimmakka, defendant No.2 - Akkamma and sister-in-law of defendant No.1 – Kanakarathnamma; so also the trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the well settled position of law that when there exists disputed questions of law and fact which require consideration only after a full-fledged trial, the merits/demerits of the rival contentions cannot be gone into or taken into consideration while considering an application for impleadment and all rival contentions between the petitioner including applicant and other parties to the suit including the issue/question of alleged adoption of petitioner by Munithayamma, alleged Will dated 26.09.2001 said to have been executed by Munithayamma's husband Rama Reddy in favour of the petitioner would have to be necessarily decided by the trial Court after providing an opportunity in this regard to both parties. 6. Under these circumstances, the trial Court clearly fell in error in prejudging the issue and coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had not proved the alleged adoption without - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3373 WP No. 34759 of 2025 appreciating that the said question/issue would require opportunity to both sides to put forth their respective claims after evidence and not while considering an application for impleadment. 7. Under these circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims on all aspects of the matter including the alleged adoption of petitioner with Munithayamma, alleged Will dated 26.09.2001 by Rama Reddy etc., without expressing any opinion on the merit/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and allow the application I.A.No.1/2025 and permit the petitioner to come on record as Additional Defendant No.5 for the limited purpose of participating in the proceedings and putting forth all his contentions which shall be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3373 WP No. 34759 of 2025 ii) The impugned order dated 23.10.2025 on I.A.No.1/2025 in O.S.No.7533/2008 on the file of XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-39, Bengaluru (Annexure-A), is hereby set aside. iii) I.A.No.1/2025 filed by the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to be impleaded as Additional Defendant No. 5 in the suit. iv) The plaintiff shall carry out amendment and file amended plaint by the next date of hearing. v) Since the matter is set to be posted before the trial Court on 22.01.2026, the trial Court is directed to adjourn/defer the matter to 09.02.2026 on which day the petitioner shall file written statement, documents etc., in support of his defence. vi) Immediately upon the petitioner filing written statement, documents etc., the trial Court shall frame additional issue and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of 6 months from 09.02.2026 after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all parties. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3373 WP No. 34759 of 2025 vii) 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. viii) Parties are directed to co-operate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20