Writ Petition No. 9216 of 2023 · Karnataka High Court · 2024

Judgment

1. SMT. SHUBHAVATHI W/O LATE B P DINAKER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT RAJGHAR, ASHOKNAGAR MANGALORE – 575 006. SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS TO PETITIONER No.1 TO 7.

2. MRS. B.P MADHUMITHA D/O LATE B P DINAKAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A ‘RAJGHAR’ ASHOKNAGAR MANGALORE – 575 006.

3. Mrs. SANMITHA

D/O LATE B P DINAKAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT ‘SRI LALITE’ HOIHEBAIL, ASHOKNAGAR MANGALORE – 575 006.

4. MRS. NIVEDITHA D/O LATE B P DINAKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A GANADABETTU BAJAL POST MANGALORE – 575 006.

5. Mrs. DIVYA D/O LATE B P DINAKAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A ‘RAJGHAR’, ASHOKNAGAR MANGALORE – 575 006.

6. Mr. B P GAUTHAM LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13424 WP No. 9216 of 2023 …PETITIONERS S/O LATE B P DINAKAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/A ‘RAJGHAR’, ASHOKNAGAR MANGALORE – 575 006.

7. MRS. PALLAVI D/O LATE B P DINAKAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT SONA RESIDENCY ADUMAROLI MANGALORE – 575 006.

8. Mrs. SHWETHA D/O LATE B P DINAKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT ‘RAJGHAR’, ASHOKNAGAR MANGALORE – 575 006. (BY SRI AKSHATHA SHETTY K, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. MRs. NUTHAN V RAO W/O K V RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT 702, LABHA SRUSTI, 123 V.C.ROAD, VIRLEPARLE (W) MUMBAI – 400 056.

4. SMT. BEENA W/O B P KARUNAKER AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT DODAKATAPPAS ROAD ULSOOR, BANGALORE – 560 008. SMT. VIDYA PRAKASH W/O LATE B P JAYAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT SHIVABAGH TOWERS SHIVABAGH, KADRI MANGALORE – 575 005. SMT. VATSALA D/O RAJEEVI AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS R/AT SAPNA MANSION ASHOK NAGAR MANGALORE – 575 006. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13424 WP No. 9216 of 2023

5. SMT. NIRMALA D/O RAJEEVI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT ALBUQUERQUE HOUSE PANDESHWAR MANGALORE. B P SHAKUNTHALA SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL HEIRS.

6. OMI SHANKER W/O BHAVANI SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

7. DIYA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS MINOR DAUGHTER REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER GUARDIAN 6TH RESPONDENT.

8. ATMA SANTHOSH W/O CHANDRANATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

9. GAGAN AGED 15 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER 8TH RESPONDENT.

10. UTHAM SANTHOSH S/O SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

11. ASHWINI SANTHOSH S/O SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. ALL No.6 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT HOSA MANE NEAR CAPITANIO HIGH SCHOOL MANGALORE – 575 002.

12. SHARMILA D/O LATE B P RATHNAKER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT ‘RAJGHAR’ ASHOKNAGAR MANGALORE – 06. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13424 WP No. 9216 of 2023

13. RAJESH S/O LATE B P RATHNAKAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT ‘RAJGHAR’ ASHOKNAGAR MANGALORE – 06.

14. RAKSHA D/O B P KARUNAKER AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT DODAKATAPPAS ROAD ULSOOR BANGALORE – 560 008.

15. SANMITHA D/O LATE B P DINKER AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

16. NIVEDITHA D/O LATE B P DINKER AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

17. DIVYA D/O LATE B P DINKER AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

18. GOWTHAM D/O LATE B P DINKER AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

19. PALLAVI D/O LATE B P DINKER AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

20. SHWETHA D/O LATE B P DINKER AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. R/AT ‘RAJGHAR’ ASHOKNAGAR MANGALORE-06.

21. AVINASH S/O LATE B P JAYAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT SHIVABAGH TOWERS SHIVABAGH, KADRI MANGALORE – 575 002.

22. SMT. KAUSALYA JAYAKAR - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13424 WP No. 9216 of 2023 W/O LATE B P JAYAKAR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.

23. ATUL CHANDRA S/O B P JAYAKAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

24. MR. DHEERESH CHANDRA S/O LATE B P JAYAKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

25. MR. JEETHAN CHANDRA S/O LATE B P JAYAKAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. No.23 TO 26 R/AT P-115, 7TH MAIN SECTOR 10, LIC COLONY JEEVAN BHEEMA NAGAR BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04/02/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

1. This petition by respondent Nos. 16 to 22 in FDP No. 30/2019 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, is directed against impugned order dated

17.01.2023 passed by the trial Court whereby the application I.A. No. 1 filed by respondent No. 1, seeking impleadment as additional respondent No. 28 to the final decree proceedings was allowed by the trial Court. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:13424 WP No. 9216 of 2023

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid final decree proceedings, respondent No.1 filed impleading application seeking impleadment on the ground that she was successor in interest of one Sri. B.P. Jayakar whose legal representatives are parties to the final decree proceedings. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, petitioner contended that the impleading applicant was the highest bidder of the property claimed by Sri. B.P. Jayakar which was executed in her favour vide sale certificate dated 13.10.2022 during the pendency of the final decree proceedings. Accordingly, respondent No.1 filed instant impleading application inter alia contending that she had stepped into the shoes of the aforesaid Sri. B.P. Jayakar and consequently since she was les pendens transferee for valuable consideration in relation to the interest of the Sri. B.P. Jayakar, she was entitled to come on record as an additional party to the final decree proceedings.

3. A perusal of the material on record also discloses that the final decree proceedings were initiated by Sri. B.P. Jayakar who did not oppose before the trial Court for impledment of respondent No. 1. Under these circumstances, the trial Court proceeded to pass - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:13424 WP No. 9216 of 2023 impugned order allowing I.A. No.1 aggrieved by which petitioners are before this Court by way of present petition.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that petitioners are respondent Nos. 16 to 21 in the final decree proceedings and cannot be said to have any locus standi for the purpose of opposing the impleadment of respondent No. 1. Secondly, it is relevant to state that all rival contentions between the parties would necessarily have to be decided during the course of the final decree proceedings after hearing all parties including the petitioners. It is needless to state that while deciding an application for impleadment, the merits of the claim of impleading applicant cannot be gone into and as such, the trial Court was fully justified in allowing the impleading application without expressing any opinion on the claim of the impleading applicant. It is relevant to state that mere impleadment of respondent No.1 as additional respondent No. 28 to the final decree proceedings cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the petitioners nor having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:13424 WP No. 9216 of 2023 reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423. Accordingly, I find no merit in the petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8