- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.787 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHIKKAMARIYAPPA S/O LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O CHIKKAMARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 3. SMT. KRISHNAVENI D/O CHIKAMARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. ALL RESIDING AT MARALAKUNTE VILLAGE BAGALUR POST, JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 562 149. …PETITIONERS (BY MISS. MEDINI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M SURESH S/O SRI. MANIKALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT MARALAKUNTE VILLAGE, IDEAL MEADOWS, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS, JALA HOBLI, BAGALUR POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562 149. 2. SRI. CHINNAPPA S/O NADUPANNA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 R/AT BYRATHI VILLAGE, DODDAGUBBI POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 077. 3. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT MARALAKUNTE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 111. 4. SRI. SANDEEP S/O LATE VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT MARALAKUNTE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT- 562 111. 5. SRI. MUNEGOWDA S/O LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MARALAKUNTE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT- 562 111. 6. SRI. RAMESHA, S/O LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT MARALAKUNTE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 111. 7. SMT. MEENA, W/O LATE LOKESH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, CHENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHENNARAYANAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 157. 8. MASTER UDHAY S/O LATE LOKESH, AGED MINOR, CHENAHALLI VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 CHENNARAYANAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562157. SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN, I.E., HIS MOTHER, SMT. MEENA, I.E., RESPONDENT NO.7. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE LD. I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL, IN O.S.NO.271 OF 2016 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2025, PASSED ON I.A.NO. 9 (ANNEXURE-A). 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 plaintiffs in O.S.No.271/2016 is directed against the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed on I.A.No.9 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural, whereby the said application filed by the respondent No.1- impleading applicant was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent Nos.2 to 6 – defendants for declaration and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the defendants. During pendency of the suit, the respondent No.1-impleading applicant filed the instant application seeking impleadment on the ground that both plaintiffs and defendants had executed certain documents in his favour and as such, he was both proper and necessary party to the suit. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiffs, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the plaint averments and reliefs, which are as under: “PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII, RULE 1, OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE The plaintiffs above named humbly submits as follows:- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 1. The address of the parties for the purpose of issue of summons, notices, etc., from this Hon'ble Court is as stated in the cause title. The plaintiffs may be served through their counsels Sri. Ravi Kumar and Ashok, No. 249, YVK Complex, above Union Bank. 14th Cross, ‘A’ Sector, 1st Phase, Chikkabommasandra Circle, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore - 560 064. 2. The plaintiffs submits that, the plaintiffs are the sole and absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Survey No. 107/2, measuring 0-37 guntas, out of 2-32 guntas, situated at Maralakunte Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the 'SCHEDULE PROPERTY'. 3. The plaintiffs submit that, the plaintiffs had approached the 1st defendant and requested for financial assistance of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) and the 1st defendant has agreed for the same and sought security of the schedule property by way of an agreement of sale, and in view of the plaintiffs were in dire need of funds during that period, the plaintiffs agreed and executed an agreement of sale dated 17.9.2011, registered as No. JAL-1-02795-2011-12, stored in C.D. No. JALD 109, in the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar. Gandhinagar (Jala). Subsequently, the plaintiffs have cleared the loan to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant has executed a cancellation deed of the sale agreement dated 17.9.2011, under the cancellation of sale agreement dated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 17.11.2014, registered as No. JAL-1-02232-2014-15, stored in C.D. No. JALD 203, in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Gandhinagar (Jala) and thus, the transaction between the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs ended. 4. The plaintiffs submit that, the 1st and 2nd defendants by playing fraud and mischief, at the time of presenting the cancellation of the sale agreement dated 17.11.2014, have also got prepared a sale agreement and general power of attorney without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs and have submitted those two documents along with the cancellation of sale agreement dated 17.11.2014, and got the sale agreement in favour of the 2nd defendant registered on the same day of 17.11.2014, registered as No. JAL-1-02233-2014-15, stored in C.D. No. JALD 203, in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Gandhinagar (Jala), and the general power of attorney dated 17.11.2014, registered as No. JAL-4-00185- 2014-15, stored in C.D. No. JALD 203, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar (Jala), which are sham, null and void document. Besides, no consideration has been passed on to the plaintiffs. 5. The plaintiffs submit that, the plaintiffs never intended to sell the schedule property and by any stretch of imagination, the plaintiffs are not ready and willing to sell the schedule property. In this context, the plaintiffs submit that, there is a partition suit pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli, in O.S. No. 697/2013, and an interim order of temporary injunction is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 also in operation to not to alienate or encumber the schedule property which is well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and hence, the plaintiffs are not desirous of selling the schedule property and the plaintiffs do not intend to violate the court order. 6. The plaintiffs submit that, both the defendants in collusion with each other by insidious and clandestine means taking advantage of the illiteracy, ignorance and gullibility of the plaintiffs have obtained fraudulent sale agreement and general power of attorney and the plaintiffs came to know about the defendants obtaining fraudulent sale agreement and general power of attorney recently when the defendants attempted to interfere with the possession of the schedule property by the plaintiffs and had been proclaiming in the area on 10.3.2016 that, the 2nd defendant is the agreement holder and general power of attorney holder and hence, the plaintiffs made fervent enquiries and were shocked to know about the 2nd defendant in collusion with the 1st defendant obtained the sale agreement and general power of attorney and hence, is immediately caused a legal notice terminating the alleged sale agreement dated 17.11.2014 and revoking the general power of attorney dated 17.11.2014. by the legal notice dated 15.3.2016. The legal notice to the 1st defendant has been duly served and the notice to the 2nd defendant returned unserved. The 1st defendant after receipt of the legal notice has caused untenable reply dated 31.3.2016. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 7. The plaintiffs submits that, the plaintiffs are only sole and absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and every portion thereof, with all right, title, interest, claim and possession over the schedule property and the right, title, interest, claim, possession, easements, liberties, privileges, hereditaments, appurtenances, whether underneath or above the surface in favour of the plaintiffs is unassailable, unimpeachable and incontrovertible, other than the plaintiffs, there are no other person or persons, who have any manner of right, title, interest, share, claim or possession over the schedule property or any portion thereof. 8. The defendants are total stranger to the schedule property without any manner of right, title, interest, share, claim or possession over the schedule property or any portion thereof, as well to the plaintiffs and without any such right, title, interest, share, claim or possession over the schedule property, the 2nd defendant is attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiffs. Infact, the 2nd defendant for the first time made such attempt on 10.3.2016, but, the plaintiffs with the help of family members prevented the 2nd defendant from interfering with the possession of the schedule property. The 2nd defendant went away posing a threat that, he will come with full force and interfere with the possession of the schedule property and accordingly, the 2nd defendant with his henchmen intention of the 2nd defendant. came near the schedule property on 25.3.2016, and attempted to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 dispossess the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs with great difficulty with the help of neighbours, public and family members was successful in turning out the However, the plaintiffs approached the jurisdictional police seeking help, but, the police refused to help the plaintiffs in the guise that, the dispute is civil in nature. That, after the police refusing to help the police, the 2nd defendant became wild and again came with number of men and attempted to interfere with the possession of the schedule property by the plaintiffs on 30.3.2016. This time it was very difficult for the plaintiffs to prevent the 2nd defendant and somehow with the help of neighbours, friends and relatives, the plaintiffs resisted the unlawful act of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is a very powerful person in the locality and the plaintiffs are unable to resist the unlawful act of the 2nd defendant at all times without the aid and indulgence of this Hon'ble Court. Hence, this suit. 9. The cause of action for the suit arose on 10.3.2 10.3.2016 on 15.3.2016, 25.3.2016 and on 30.3.2016, when the 2nd defendant with his men attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the schedule property and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, at Bangalore. 10. The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is as per the annexed valuation slip. 11. The plaintiffs have not filed any other suit on the same cause of action and there is no pending proceedings - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 on the subject matter of the suit either before this Hon'ble Court or any other Courts. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgement and decree as follows :- a) Declare that, the alleged sale agreement dated 17.11.2014, registered as No. JAL-1283-2014 15, stared in C.D. No. JALD 203/ 03 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar (Jala), in favour of the 2nd defendant, is a sham, null and void document; b) Declare that, the alleged General Power of Attorney dated 18.11.2014, registered as No. JAL-4- 00185-2014-15, stored in C.D. No. JALD 203, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar (Jala), in favour of the 2nd defendant is a sham, null and void document; c) Pass an order of permanent injunction, restraining the 2nd defendant from in any way alienating or encumbering the schedule property in favour of third parties; d) pass an order of permanent injunction, restraining the 2nd defendant from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiffs, either by himself or through his men, agents, or any person or persons claiming through him or on his behalf; - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 e) award the costs of this suit, and the grant of such other relief/s, as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Survey No. 107/2, measuring 0-37 guntas, out of 2-32 guntas, situated at Maralakunte Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, bounded on the : East by : Land of rajanna, West by : Land of Venkatashamappa, North by : Land of Munegowda, Son of Patel Sonnappa, South by : Land of Munegowda, Son of Chikkaramaiah. VERIFICATION We, the plaintiffs above named, do hereby verify and declare that, what is stated above is true to the best of our knowledge, information and belief.” 5. A perusal of the plaint averments will indicate that there is no reference to the impleading applicant in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs. In addition thereto, a perusal of the averments made in the impleadment application will indicate that the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 impleading applicant is claiming independent right over the suit schedule property by virtue of alleged documents said to have been executed by the plaintiffs and defendants in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the well settled principles of law pertaining to addition / impleadment of parties and the plaintiffs being the dominus litis as held by the Apex Court in M/S J N Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. – 2025 INSC 611 and Nak Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. V. Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Ors. – 2026 INSC 8, the impleading applicant cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the said suit especially when he claims a right independent of the issues and controversy involved in the suit. It is needless to state that the impleading applicant - respondent No.1, who claims independent right would not be bound by any judgment, decree, order, compromise, etc., passed / to be passed in the suit, which would be binding only upon the parties to the suit and would not affect the right, title, interest or possession, if any, in the suit schedule property claimed by the impleading applicant and his rights and contentions would have to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 be necessarily kept open to be decided in an appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed in O.S.No.271/2016 on I.A.No.9 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. (iii) I.A.No.9 filed by respondent No.1-impleading applicant is hereby disposed of by directing that any judgment, decree, order, compromise, etc., passed / to be passed in the suit, would be binding only upon the parties to the suit and would not affect the right, title, interest or possession, if any, in the suit schedule property claimed by the impleading applicant and his rights and contentions is kept open to be decided in an appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9048 WP No. 787 of 2026 (iv) Liberty is also reserved in favour of respondent No.1-impeding applicant to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including instituting a separate suit. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7