- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9594 WP No. 21259 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21259 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. JAYAMMA D/O LATE GIRIYAPPA @ GIRIYANNA, W/O LATE KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BENNAPPAPALYA THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562120 2. GANGAMMA D/O LATE. GIRIYAPPA @ GIRIYANNA, W/O VENIKATESH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT MANARAYAPALYYA, R.T.NAGARA POST, BENGALURU - 560 032. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. T PRAKASH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAKAMMA W/O LATE. GIRIYAPPA @ GIRIYANNA DEAD BY LRS WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT NO.2 TO 9 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9594 WP No. 21259 of 2023 1. VENKATESH S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA @ GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. TEJASWINI D/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 3. PUSHPALATHA D/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 4. GIRISH S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 ARE MINORS DULY REP. BY THEIR NATURAL FATHER - DEFENDANT NO.2 AS GUARDIAN R/AT NETHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST. 562 120 5. GANGATHIMMAIAH S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA @ GIRIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 6. SHOBHA D/O GANGATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 7. SARASWATHI D/O GANGATHIMMAIH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9594 WP No. 21259 of 2023 8. HEMANTHKUMAR S/O GANGATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.6,7 AND 8 ARE MINORS DULY REP. BY THEIR NATURAL FATHER RESPONDENT NO. 5 AS THE GUARDIAN R/ AT NETHENAHALLI, VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562120 9. HANUMAKKA W/O LATE V. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 10. HANAMANTHA S/O LATE V.VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 11. SEENAPPA S/O LATE V.VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 12. LOKESH S/O LATE V. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 13. RAMESH S/O LATE V. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.9 TO 13 ARE R/AT NO. 1358, HOMBALAMMA PETE, MAGADI TOWN, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562120 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9594 WP No. 21259 of 2023 14. YALAKKAIAH @ YALAKAPPA S/O LATE ANGADI CHANNAIAH, AGEDA BOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT AMMA NILAYA NO. 31 GANESHA TEMPLE RAOD, NETHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TLAUK, RAMANAGARA DIST - 562 120. 15. HEMAVATHI N V W/O NAGARAJU D/O YALAKAIAH @ YALAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT DODDAMALALAVADI VILLAGE, BHAKTHARAHALLI P.O., HEBBURU HOBLI, KUNIGAL TQ TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572130 16. JAYAMMA W/O YALAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT AMMA NILAYA, NETHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TQ RAMANAGARA DIST- 562 120 …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 22.09.2023; NOTICE TO R1 TO R13 IS DISPENSED WITH R14, R15 ARE SERVED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.2023 NOTICE TO R16 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/09/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI, RAMANGARAM IN OS NO. 241/2018, ALLOWING THE IA NO. 7 FILED BY THE IMPLEADING APPLICANTS (R13 TO 16 HEREIN) FILED - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9594 WP No. 21259 of 2023 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) TO IMPELAD THEM AS DEFENDANT THEM AS DEFENDANT NO. 15 TO 17 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THIS WP. 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.241/2018 is directed against the impugned order dated 05.09.2023 passed on I.A.No.7 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the application filed by respondent Nos.14, 15 and 16 seeking impleadment as additional defendants was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that petitioners-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against respondent Nos.1 to 13 for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties. During the pendency of the said petition, respondent Nos.14 to 16 claiming independent right sought for impleadment, which was allowed by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9594 WP No. 21259 of 2023 the Trial Court vide impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition. 4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the same is contrary to the principles laid down in relation to addition/deletion of parties as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sudhamayee Pattnaik and others Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and others – 2022 INSC 971, which is hereunder: “We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the defendants in the suit filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and prayed to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants. The suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the domius litis. Unless the court suo moto directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs. Therefore, subsequent purchasers could not have been impleaded as party defendants in the application submitted - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9594 WP No. 21259 of 2023 by the original defendants, that too against the wish of the plaintiffs.” 5. So also, the Apex Court in its recent judgments in the cases of M/s. J.N. Real Estates Vs. Shailendra Pradhan – 2025 INSC 611 and NAK Engineering Co. Ltd Vs. Tasun Keshrichand & ors – 2026 INSC 8 has held that the plaintiff being the dominus litus cannot be compelled to implead persons claiming independent right over the suit schedule properties. In the instant case it is a matter of record that respondent Nos.14 to 16 are neither family members nor purchasers of any portion of the suit schedule properties from any of the parties to the aforesaid suit for partition and consequently, the Trial Court clearly fell in error in allowing the application filed by respondent Nos.14 to 16 by passing the impugned order, which has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference in the present petition. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 05.09.2023 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No2.41/2018 by the Trial Court is hereby set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9594 WP No. 21259 of 2023 (iii) Consequently, I.A.No.7 filed by respondent Nos.14 to 17 is dismissed. (iv) It is however made clear that any judgment, decree, order, compromise etc. passed to be passed in O.S.No.241/2018 will not be binding upon respondent Nos.14 to 16 nor will it affect their alleged right over the suit schedule properties in any manner, whatsoever. (v) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 4 Sl No.: 21