The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24970 W.P. No.51123/2019 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.51123/2019 (GM-CPC) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka BETWEEN: 1. NAGOJAPPA S/O BODA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 2. NAGAPPA S/O BODA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. BOTH ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/OF. DEVAIAHANAPALYA KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202. (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR, ADV., FOR SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADV.,) AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. SMT. C.N. LAKSHMI W/O LATE C. NAGARAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 2. C.N. SUMA D/O LATE C. NAGARAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 3. C.N. BINDU MADHAVA RAO D/O LATE C. NAGARAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. ALL ARE R/OF. C.K.PURA NIDAGAL HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202. …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24970 W.P. No.51123/2019 HC-KAR 4. C.N. SHESHADRI S/O LATE C. NAGARAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT C/O A.N. SUBRAHMANYA ABOVE A.L.N.TAILORS, L-6, 8TH CROSS LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA DEVAIAH PARK, BENGALURU-560020. RANGAPPA @ RANGANNA S/O BODA RANGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. 5. SMT. SAAKAMMA W/O LATE RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 6. SANNARANGAPPA S/O LATE RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 7. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O KENCHAIAH D/O LATE RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 8. ERAKYUATHAPPA S/O LATE RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 8 ARE R/OF DEVAIAHANAPALYA KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202. (BY MS. VRINDA HEBBAR, ADV., FOR MR. K. SHRIHARI, ADV., FOR R8 R1 TO R7 ARE SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 8.11.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PAVAGADA ON I.A.NO.7 IN O.S.NO.34/2015 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24970 W.P. No.51123/2019 HC-KAR I.A.NO.7 FILED BY PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C & 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 follow reliefs: "i) Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the order dated 8/11/2019 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Pavagada on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.34/2015 certified copy of which is produced as Annexure-E and be pleased filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC certified copy of which is produced as Annexure-C." to allow I.A.No.7 2. Sri.G.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed OS.No.34/2015 seeking declaration that Will, agreement of sale and sale deed are not binding and further relief of partition and separate possession. It is submitted that defendant No.2-Sri.Rangappa had earlier filed OS.No.40/2002 for a relief of specific performance of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24970 W.P. No.51123/2019 HC-KAR agreement of sale dated 30.11.2000. The said suit was decreed. Later, he filed execution petition in Ex.No.31/2007 and got the sale deed executed on 11.01.2008. The present petitioners/applicants being the members of the joint family along with defendant No.2 have contributed to purchase the property under the registered sale deed dated 11.01.2008. The said sale deed was got registered in the name of defendant No.2. It is further submitted that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the applicants and defendant No.2. Hence, they filed an application to implead themselves as a party in OS.No.34/2015 contending that the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of defendant No.2 out of the funds of the joint family property and now the legal heirs of defendant No.2 are on record, they are not effectively defending the suit. Hence, to protect the interest and property of the joint family, they are necessary and proper parties. However, the trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that they - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24970 W.P. No.51123/2019 HC-KAR have to file a separate suit. It is submitted that allowing the application would not cause any prejudice or harm to the plaintiffs or to the other defendants and the applicants intend to take a stand only to the interest of joint family property which the LRs of deceased defendant No.2 have failed to do in the suit. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order of the trial Court. 3. Per contra, Ms.Vrinda Hebbar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.K.Shrihari, learned counsel for respondent No.8 submits that she has no objection to allow the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for respondent No.8 and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24970 W.P. No.51123/2019 HC-KAR 5. The pleading and material on record indicate that respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed OS.No.414/2008 which was re-numbered as 34/2015 for the following reliefs: the that "a) For declaring alleged unregistered Will dated 15-7-1989 and alleged agreement of sale dated 30-11-2000 and decree passed in O.S.No.40/2002 and its execution proceedings of Ex.No.31/2007 and the alleged sale deed dated 11-1-2008 are not binding upon the plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property, and b) For partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 1/4th share each in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds, and c) For permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from interfering or obstructing or meddling with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner, and d) For costs of the suit and such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity." 6. The contentions of the plaintiffs in OS.No.34/2015 are that the unregistered Will dated 15.07.1989, sale agreement dated 30.11.2000 and the sale deed dated 11.01.2008 executed pursuant to the execution proceedings in Ex.No.31/2007 are not binding - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24970 W.P. No.51123/2019 HC-KAR and they seek for partition and separate possession of their share. The facts on record indicate that defendant No.1 in OS.No.34/2015 is Sri.C.N.Seshadri claimed to have been acquired the right over the suit schedule property through Will dated 15.07.1989 executed by his grandfather Sri.Venkatesha Rao. Based on the said Will, defendant No.1-Sri.C.N.Seshadri executed an agreement of sale dated 30.11.2000 in favour of defendant No.2- Sri.Rangappa, now deceased. Defendant No.2 filed a suit in OS.No.40/2002 to enforce the agreement of sale dated 30.11.2000. The said suit came to be decreed and thereafter, he filed execution petition in Ex.No.31/2007. Consequently, the sale deed dated 11.01.2008 came to be executed in favour of defendant No.2-Sri.Rangappa. The contention of the petitioners is that the sale deed executed in the name of Sri.Rangappa-defendant No.2 is out of the funds of the joint family property as they are the brothers of said Sri.Rangappa. It is submitted that the suit schedule property is the joint family property and to protect the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24970 W.P. No.51123/2019 HC-KAR interest of the family and to protect the property, they are the necessary and proper parties. It is also contended that though the legal heirs of defendant No.2-Sri.Rangappa have been brought on record in OS.No.34/2015; they are not effectively defending the suit. Hence, they may be permitted to be arrayed as the parties to the suit so that they can defend the suit and protect the joint family property. The trial Court rejected the said request on the ground that the petitioners can file a separate suit against the deceased Sri.Rangappa if the property claimed is a joint family property and the legal heirs of the deceased Sri.Rangappa are effectively defending the suit. I have perused the written statement filed by the legal heirs of defendant No.2, which clearly indicates that they have denied the assertion made in the plaint in OS.No.34/2015. In other words, the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.2-Sri.Rangappa are effectively defending the suit contending that the said acquisition of property is self acquired property of deceased Sri.Rangappa and they - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24970 W.P. No.51123/2019 HC-KAR have also filed an additional written statement. When things stood thus, in my considered view, the trial Court has fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the brothers of deceased Sri.Rangappa. The petitioners who claim that they are the brothers of deceased defendant No.2-Sri.Rangappa have yet to establish their rights over the property to say that the property is joint family property. Unless that right is established they cannot be treated as necessary or proper parties in the suit files by respondent Nos.1 to 3. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29