The High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25036 W.P. No.5187/2020 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.5187/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MUTHAIAH S/O LATE DODDABYATARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O: THIMMAPPANAPALYA BIDADI HOBLI RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562109. (BY SRI. VINAY D. HOSMATH, ADV.,) …PETITIONER AND:
Legal Reasoning
establishes a prima facie case showing that he is a coparcener and has interest in the suit schedule properties, he cannot be arrayed as a party to the suit. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.10 and 11 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both the sides. 6. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.665/2013 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties which is pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking for impleadment. The affidavit accompanying the application of the petitioner indicates that the original propositus is Sri.Kariyappa and he had two sons namely Bevinaguddadaiah - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25036 W.P. No.5187/2020 HC-KAR and Javarangaiah. The grandchildren of said Javarangaiah have filed the aforesaid suit and the petitioner is the grandson of Bevinaguddadaiah. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there is no partition between Bevinaguddadaiah and Javarangaiah and without arraying the petitioner, the suit has been filed and he being the coparcener, is entitled to a share in the properties. The petitioner has made a specific assertion that he is a coparcener of the joint family properties and there is no partition among the grandparents of the petitioner and the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 and 2. I am of the considered view that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting such application. Whether or not the petitioner has any right over the property is required to be gone into by the Trial Court in the regular trial and the Trial Court ought not have rejected the application at the threshold when the petitioner is claiming that he is the coparcener of the joint family and asserts that there has been no partition. In my considered view, the application deserves to be allowed. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25036 W.P. No.5187/2020 HC-KAR
Arguments
1. SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O LATE HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 2. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. R1 & R2 ARE R/O THIMMAPPANAPALYA GRAMA HAJJALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109. 3. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 4. MUNIKUMAR S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25036 W.P. No.5187/2020 HC-KAR 5. MANJUNATH S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. R3 TO R5 ARE R/O. THIMMAPPANAPALYA, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562109. 6. SAIYANAMMA @ RANI D/O PANNASWAMI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O NO.450, 7TH MAIN ROAD JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK BENGALURU-560011. 7. G. SWARNAKUMARI W/O H. GURUNATH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 8. H. GURUNATH S/O G. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. R7 & R8 ARE R/O NO.11 8TH CROSS ROAD N R COLONY, BENGALURU-560019. 9. R. RANGASWAMY S/O T. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O JADENAKARAHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562109. 10. NAGARAJ S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 11. T.R. RANGASWAMY S/O CHIKKAREVAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. R10 & R11 ARE R/O. THIMMAPPANAPALYA GRAMA, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562109. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25036 W.P. No.5187/2020 HC-KAR 12. RANGASWAMAIAH S/O LATE DODDABYATARANGAIAH AGED MAJOR R/O THIMMAPPANAPALYA, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562109. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. SUBBA SHASTRY, ADV., FOR R10 & R11 V/O/DTD:05.03.2020 NOTICE TO R1 TO R9 AND R12 ARE D/W) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ORDER VIDE ANNX-E PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT RAMANAGARAM IN O.S.NO.665/2013 DATED 11.12.2019 ON I.A.NO.7 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking for the following relief: "writ of certiorari quashing order vide Annexure-E passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Ramanagaram in O.S.No.665/2013 dated 11.12.2019 on I.A.No.7." 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Vinay D.Hosmath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for partition and separate possession without making all the family members as parties to the suit. It is submitted that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25036 W.P. No.5187/2020 HC-KAR when the petitioner came to know about the filing of the suit, he filed an application for impleadment in the said suit, contending that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and the original propositus Sri.Kariyappa had never divided the properties among the children nor the grandfather or father of the petitioner and the grandfather of the plaintiffs have divided the properties. However, the Trial Court, on the assumption that the suit is filed by the grandchildren of Javarangaiah and by assuming that there had been a partition between Javarangaiah and Bevinaguddadaiah, proceeded to reject the application. He submits that the petitioner is not only a necessary party but also a proper party, as the properties involved in the suit are the joint family properties and he is the coparcener. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Sri.N.Subba Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.10 and 11 submits that the respondents are the purchasers of the properties. It is submitted that to defeat the rights of the respondents, a suit has been filed by the petitioner and to delay further proceedings, an application has been filed by the petitioner who - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25036 W.P. No.5187/2020 HC-KAR has no right whatsoever with regard to the suit schedule properties. The said application has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. It is submitted that unless the petitioner
Decision
ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 11.12.2019 passed on I.A.No.7 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.7 is allowed. (iii) The petitioner is permitted to be arrayed as the defendant in the suit. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36