Karnataka High Court
Smt. Divya Kumari vs Sri. Ratan Lal on 26 November, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49078
WP No. 11070 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 11070 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. DIVYA KUMARI
AGED 27 YEARS,
W/O LOKESH SUTHAR
D/O S ASHOK KUMAR.
2. SMT. DIMPLE KUMARI
AGED 25 YEARS
W/O DHIRAJ KUMAR SHARMA N
D/ ASHOK KUMAR.
PETITIONER NOs.1 AND 2
RESIDING AT NO.32/2
BYSANI ENCLAVE, FLAT GD,
SHANKAR MUTT MAIN ROAD
SHANKARPURAM BASAVAGUDI
BANGALORE - 560 004.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally
(BY SRI NAYANA TARA B.G, ADV.)
signed by AND:
NANDINI M S
Location:
HIGH COURT 1. SRI RATAN LAL
OF MAJOR
KARNATAKA
S/O ACHALRAM.
NO.169, 15TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK
HANUMANTHNAGAR,
BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 050.
2. SMT. RADHA DEVI
MAJOR
W/O RATAN LAL
NO.169, 15TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK
HANUMANTHNAGAR,
BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49078
WP No. 11070 of 2024
HC-KAR
BANGALORE - 560 050.
3. SRI S ASHOK KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O SONA RAMJI
RESIDING AT 1022 ADITYA
15TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE
1ST BLOCK, HANUMANTHNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 019.
4. SMT. INDIRA BAI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O S. ASHOK KUMAR
RESIDING AT 1022, ADITYA
15TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE
1ST BLOCK, HANUMANTHNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 019.
5. VISHWA BHARATHI HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
NO.35, RATHNA VILAS ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHOKKAREDDY, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI SHARATH MULIA, ADV., FOR R-3 & R-4;
R-5 SERVED & UNREPRSENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 13/03/2024 PASSED BY THE XTH ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-26) BANGALORE IN OS 1704/2020 AT
ANNEXURE-J IMPLEADING THE PETITIONERS AS DEFENDANTS NO. 4
AND 5.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:49078
WP No. 11070 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Court of X Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on IA No.8 in OS No.1704/2020 vide Annexure-J.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have filed OS No.1704/2020 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru, initially against respondent Nos.3 to 5 in this writ petition, seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The original defendants had filed their written statement in the suit and contested the suit claim. IA No.8 was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in OS No.1704/2020 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC with a prayer to implead the petitioners herein as party defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the suit. The said application was opposed by the petitioners herein who are the proposed defendants, by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed IA No.8 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:49078 WP No. 11070 of 2024 HC-KAR and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Gift Deeds were executed in favour of petitioners by defendant No.2, who is the mother of the petitioners and the said transaction is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. She submits that a transferee pendente lite need not be necessarily arrayed as a defendant in the suit. In the present case, since the parents of the petitioners have been contesting the suit, presence of the petitioners in the suit is not at all necessary. She submits that petitioners are ready and willing to undertake before the Court that they shall be bound by the decree to be passed in the suit, even in their absence. In support of her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Anjanappa and Others vs. A. Prabhakar and Others - Civil Appeal Nos.1180-1181/2025 disposed off on 29.01.2025.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that during the pendency of the suit, two separate Gift Deeds have been executed in respect of the suit schedule -5- NC: 2025:KHC:49078 WP No. 11070 of 2024 HC-KAR property by defendant No.2 in favour of the petitioners. The plaintiffs had filed IA No.7 with a prayer to amend the plaint and the said application has been allowed and in the amended prayers, even the Gift Deeds which are executed in favour of the petitioners herein are challenged. Therefore, petitioners become necessary party to the suit. He, accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Suit in OS No.1704/2020 is filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein with a prayer to declare that registered Sale Deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, who is his wife are sham and created documents which are void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiffs or on the suit schedule property. A consequential relief of permanent injunction is also sought in the said suit. During the pendency of the suit, two separate Gift Deeds were executed by defendant No.2 on 28.06.2023 in favour of the petitioners herein, which were registered in the office of Additional Sub-Registrar, Basavangudi. Thereafter, IA No.7 was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs to permit them to amend the plaint by raising additional prayers challenging the aforesaid two Gift Deeds and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:49078 WP No. 11070 of 2024 HC-KAR IA No.7 was allowed and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend the plaint in OS No.1704/2020 and incorporate additional prayers challenging the Gift Deeds dated 28.06.2023 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the petitioners herein, who are the daughters of defendant Nos.1 and 2. IA No.8 is filed to implead the petitioners as party defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the suit.
7. A party can be impleaded in a suit if it is found that the said party is either necessary or proper party to the proceedings. Undisputedly, plaintiffs have now questioned the Gift Deeds executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the petitioners herein. Since the said transaction has taken place during the pendency of the suit, though it can be said that the petitioners, who are transferee pendente lite are not necessary parties to the suit, they are definitely proper parties to the suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Anjanappa (supra) has observed that for the purpose of impleading a transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances of the case should be gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the Court can permit such a party to come on record, either under -7- NC: 2025:KHC:49078 WP No. 11070 of 2024 HC-KAR Order I Rule 10 of CPC or under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC as a general principle. It is further held in the said case that a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right. In the said case, it is also observed that impleadment of transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available on record.
8. In the present case, as noted herein above, the mother of the petitioners has executed two Gift Deeds dated 28.06.2023 during the pendency of the suit and thereafter, plaint in OS No.1704/2020 was permitted to be amended and now an additional prayer is raised challenging the aforesaid two Gift Deeds executed by defendant No.2 in favour of petitioners herein and therefore, petitioners becomes a proper party to the suit, so as to bind them with the outcome of the suit. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
9. At this juncture, a request is made on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioners have not filed their written statement and they may -8- NC: 2025:KHC:49078 WP No. 11070 of 2024 HC-KAR be granted reasonable time to file their written statement in OS No.1704/2020.
10. Considering the said submission, petitioners are granted four weeks time from today to file their written statement before the Trial Court in OS No.1704/2020.
11. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending IA No.1/2025 and 2/2025 do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, they are disposed off.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13