Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramesh S/O Jakappa Patil vs Sri. Narasu @ Narsing S/O Appaji ... on 30 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11053
WP No. 115359 of 2019
C/W WP No. 115368 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 115359 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
C/W. WRIT PETITION NO. 115368 OF 2019
IN WP NO. NO. 115359 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH S/O. JAKAPPA PATIL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.108, PATIL GALLI, CHALAWENHATTI,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590015.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASAD RAMESHRAO SIDHANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. REKHA W/O. SADA NERLI,
Digitally signed by
BEFORE MARRIAGE REKHA
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
D/O. NARASU KUDNURKAR,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: 1272, MARATHA GALLI,
SIDDAPURWADI, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591213.
2. SRI. NARASU @ NARSING S/O. APPAJI KUDNURKAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SAMBAJI GALLI, KURIHAL-591143,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SMT. TULASABAI W/O. SUBHASH KUDNURKAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SAMBAJI GALLI, KURIHAL,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591143.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11053
WP No. 115359 of 2019
C/W WP No. 115368 of 2019
HC-KAR
4. SRI. SURAJ S/O. SUBHASH KUDNURKAR,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SAMBAJI GALLI, KURIHAL,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591143.
5. MISS. TEJESWANI D/O. SUBHASH KUDNURKAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: SAMBAJI GALLI, KURIHAL,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591143.
6. MISS. POONAM D/O. NARASU KUDNURKAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SAMBAJI GALLI, KURIHAL,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591143.
7. SRI. PRASHANT S/O. NARASU KUDNURKAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SAMBAJI GALLI, KURIHAL,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591143.
8. MISS. PRIYANKA D/O. NARASU KUDNURKAR,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. SAMBAJI GALLI, KURIHAL,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591143.
NOTE: SINCE THE PRESENT RESPONDENT NO.8
IS A MINOR, SHE IS REPRESENTED BY HER
FATHER I.E., PRESENT RESPONDENT NO.2.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2, R4, R6 & R7;
NOTICE TO R3 & R5 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI AT: BELAGAVI IN
O.S.NO.879/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-'E' DISMISSING THE
I.A.NO.II FILED BY THE PRESENT PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11053
WP No. 115359 of 2019
C/W WP No. 115368 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN WP NO. NO. 115368 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH S/O JAKAPPA PATIL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.108, PATIL GALLI,
CHALAWENHATTI,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590012.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASAD RAMESHRAO SIDHANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NARASU @ NARSING S/O. APPAJI KUDNURKAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LAXMIGALLI, KURIHAL K.H.,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591143.
2. SMT. REKHA W/O. SADA NERLI,
(BEFORE MARRIAGE REKHA
D/O. NARASU KUDNURKAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. 1272, MARATHA GALLI,
SIDDAPURWADI, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591213.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADV. FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.07.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI IN
O.S.NO.690/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE 'G' ALLOWING THE IA NO. 3
FILED BY THE PRESENT RESPONDENT NO.2, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11053
WP No. 115359 of 2019
C/W WP No. 115368 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
These petitions are filed seeking following reliefs:
In W.P.No.115359/2019:
A) Quash the impugned order dated 13.12.2018 passed
by the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi at
Belagavi in O.S.No.879/2017 vide Annexure-'E' dismissing
the I.A.No.II filed by the present petitioner, in the interest
of justice and equity.
B) Pass such order or orders which this Hon'ble court
deem fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances
of the case.
A) Quash the impugned order dated 10.07.2019 passed
by the learned VI Addl. Civil Judge, Belagavi at Belagavi
in O.S.No.690/2017 vide Annexure 'G' allowing the IA No.
3 filed by the present respondent no.2, in the interest of
justice and equity.
B) Pass such order or orders which this Hon'ble court
deem fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances
of the case.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11053
HC-KAR
2. Heard Sri Prasad Rameshrao Sidhanti, Sri Sangram
S.Kulkarni and Sri Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.115368/2019 submits that the petitioner has filed
O.S.No.690/2017 for a relief of specific performance of the
contract against one Narasu. In the said suit, the daughter of
said Narasu filed an application for impleadment which came to
be allowed by the trial Court contrary to the settled principles of
law. It is submitted that the suit filed by the petitioner is earlier
in point and later Smt.Rekha who has been impleaded in the suit
filed by Sri Ramesh Patil has also filed O.S.No.879/2017 for relief
of partition and separate possession and in the said suit, the
present petitioner - Sri Ramesh Patil filed an application for
impleadment which came to be rejected. It is contended that
both the suits are tried in different courts and if Smt.Rekha can
be necessary party in a suit for specific performance filed by
petitioner - Sri Ramesh Patil, then the agreement holder Sri
Ramesh Patil would have been impleaded in a suit filed by
Smt.Rekha for partition as is anticipated right under the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11053
HC-KAR
agreement would be affected, if he is not arrayed as a party in
O.S.No.879/2017. Hence, he seeks to allow the application filed
by the petitioner - Sri Ramesh Patil for impleadment in
O.S.No.879/2017.
4. Per contra, Sri Sangram S.Kulkarni and Sri Chetan
Munnoli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit
that O.S.No.690/2017 is for relief of specific performance. In the
said suit, the daughter of Narasu who has executed the
agreement in favour of the petitioner - Sri Ramesh Patil was
impleaded on the ground that she is a co-parcener of the joint
family property. In support of their contention, Sri Sangram
S.Kulkarni, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moreshar Yadaorao
Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) through LRs
and others reported in 2022 SCC On-Line SC 1307 and
submits that insofar as suit for partition filed by Smt.Rekha is
concerned, the agreement holder is neither necessary nor proper
party to the suit. Hence, they seek to dismiss the writ petitions.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for respondents and meticulously perused the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11053
HC-KAR
material available on record. I have given my anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced.
6. Sri Ramesh Patil filed O.S.No.690/2017 for relief of
specific performance of agreement dated 10.07.2001 and
17.10.2001 alleged to have been executed by one Sri Narasu. In
the said suit, the daughter of Narasu, Smt.Rekha filed an
application under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 for impleadment which came to be allowed. Smt.Rekha
filed O.S.No.879/2017 against her father Narasu and others for a
relief of partition and separate possession of her share claiming
to be co-parcener of the family. In the said suit, the agreement
holder Sri Ramesh Patil filed an application for impleadment
under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC which came to be rejected on
the ground that the suit is for partition and separate possession
and stranger to the family cannot be impleaded as he is neither
necessary nor proper party to the suit. Admittedly,
O.S.No.690/2017 is filed prior to O.S.No.879/2017 and the
parties are claiming their respective rights in the suits. Sri
Ramesh Patil intends to enforce the agreement of sale with
regard to one property and Smt.Rekha is seeking her share in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11053
HC-KAR
five properties. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in
principle agree that if both the suits are tried together, the
interest of justice would be met and no prejudice would cause to
the other side. Keeping in mind the principle that if both the suits
are allowed to be tried separately, the interest of the parties to
the suit may affect by divergent findings and judgments. Hence,
in my considered view without expressing any opinion and
without interfering with the impugned orders in both the writ
petitions, I am of the considered view that both the suits in
O.S.No.690/2017 pending on the file of VI Addl. Civil Judge,
Belagavi and O.S.No.879/2017 pending on the file of Principal
Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Belagavi are tried together.
7. In view of the consensus arrived by the learned
counsel, this Court need not adjudicate the legal contentions
urged in these petitions and they are kept open to be decided at
an appropriate stage.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petitions are disposed off.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11053
HC-KAR
ii. O.S.No.690/2017 is transferred to the Court of
Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Belagavi.
iii. The Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Belagavi
shall club O.S.No.690/2017 with
O.S.No.879/2017 and try both suits together.
iv. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
CLK
