Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkateshaiah vs Sri M Krishnappa on 16 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26274
W.P. No.19304/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.19304/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATESHAIAH
S/O SRI. MODALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT. BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
Digitally signed BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
by RUPA V
Location: High ...PETITIONER
Court of
karnataka (BY SRI. GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. M. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA @ SOTTAPPA
NOW DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1(a) SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
SINCE DECEASED, LR'S
1(b) TO 1(e) IS ALREADY ON RECORD.
[AMENDMENT CARRIED AS PER ORDER
DATED 30.06.2025]
1(b) SMT. K. MEENAKSHI
D/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA
W/O LATE PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT. BHUNAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26274
W.P. No.19304/2019
HC-KAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
1(c) SRI. K. SURESH BABU
S/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT. BHUNAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
1(d) SRI. K. RAVICHANDRA
S/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT. BHUNAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
1(e) KUMARI K. KUSUMA
D/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT. BHUNAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
2. SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA
S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA @ SOTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT. BHUNAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
3. SRI. GOPALAPPA
S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA @ SOTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT. BHUNAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
4. SRI. NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA @ SOTTAPPA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26274
W.P. No.19304/2019
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT. BHUNAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
5. SRI. M. MURALIDHARA
S/O M. MUNISHAMAPPA @ PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT BHUNAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANANTH KUMAR C, ADV., FOR R1 (b-e)
SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADV., FOR R5
R2 TO R4 SERVED
R1(a) -DECEASED R1(b to e) ARE
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE'S OF R1(a) V/O/DTD:30.06.2025)
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.03.2019 IN
I.A.NO.3 IN FDP NO.6/2010, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., AT DEVANAHALLI, AS PER ANNEXURE-A. CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN FDP NO.6/2010, PENDING BEFORE
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., AT DEVANAHALLI.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
14.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:26274
W.P. No.19304/2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
26.03.2019 passed on I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner under
Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, in FDP No.6/2010, on the file of the Principal.
Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli Taluk.
2. Heard.
3. Sri.Ganapathy Bhat, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of land
measuring 26 guntas in Sy.No.42/1A of Bhuvanahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, as per the boundaries shown
in the sale deed. It is submitted that the petitioner filed a suit
for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.233/2001 which was
decreed and as per the decree, the petitioner is in possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is further
submitted that the petitioner filed an application to effect
petitioner's name in the revenue record. The jurisdictional
Tahsildar, vide order dated 15.12.2005 directed to enter the
name of the petitioner to an extent of 26 guntas. The said
order is based on the survey sketch at Annexure-E. The
NC: 2025:KHC:26274
HC-KAR
respondents assailed the said order before the Assistant
Commissioner who has set aside the order of the Tahsildar.
The Deputy Commissioner, in the revision proceedings
confirmed the order of the Tahsildar. It is also submitted that
the petitioner filed an application to implead himself as a party
in FDP No.6/2010 on the ground that the petitioner's property
is involved in the said final decree proceedings. However, the
Trial Court, without appreciating the material on record,
rejected the said application. It is contended that the boundary
will prevail over the extent and as per the boundaries shown in
the judgment and decree, the petitioner is a necessary and
proper party in the final decree proceedings and therefore, the
FDP Court can hold enquiry and take decision based on the
evidence adduced by the parties. Hence, he seeks to allow the
petition.
4. Per contra, Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel
for the respondent No.5 supports the impugned order of the
Trial Court and submits that the Tahsildar in the revenue
proceedings, without looking into the sale deed ordered to
enter the name of the petitioner to an extent of 26 guntas
NC: 2025:KHC:26274
HC-KAR
which was reversed by the Assistant Commissioner. It is
submitted that by playing fraud, the petitioner and others in a
revision petition, filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 4
of the CPC and based on such illegal compromise, the revision
petition came to be allowed by affirming the order of the
Tahsildar. It is further submitted that the respondent No.5 was
not a party to the proceedings before the Deputy
Commissioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.31262/2018 challenging the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner which came to be allowed and the
impugned order was set aside. It is also submitted that the
petitioner cannot claim more extent than what he has
purchased in the sale deed. The judgment and decree obtained
by the petitioner has attained finality and as per the decree,
the petitioner is the owner in possession of only 9 guntas of the
land and considering these aspects, the Trial Court rejected the
application for impleadment which does not call for any
interference.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and
NC: 2025:KHC:26274
HC-KAR
perused the material available on record. I have given my
anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the
sides.
6. The pleading and material on record indicates that
the petitioner filed O.S.No.233/2001 against the respondent
No.5 seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.
The said suit came to be decreed on 11.03.2004. A perusal of
the decree indicates that the subject matter of the suit was an
agricultural land situated at Bhuvanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Devanahalli in Sy.No.42/1A with boundaries shown and the
extent is 9 guntas. Admittedly, the decree obtained by the
petitioner against the respondent No.5 is for the schedule
referred in the decree. The sale deed on record also indicates
that the petitioner is the owner to an extent of 9 guntas of the
land in the aforesaid survey number. The petitioner has
initiated the revenue proceedings before the Tahsildar.
Ultimately, the said proceedings ended in the decision of this
Court in W.P.No.31262/2018, wherein the writ petition filed by
the respondent No.5 was disposed of and the order of the
Deputy Commissioner dated 09.10.2017 in R.P.No.192/2017-
NC: 2025:KHC:26274
HC-KAR
18 was set aside except to the extent of 9 guntas. All these
aforesaid facts indicate that the petitioner is the owner in
possession of 9 guntas of land in Sy.No.42/1A of the
Bhuvanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. The
respondent No.1 filed FDP No.6/2010 in O.S.No.233/2001
seeking his demarcated share. In the said proceedings, the
petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with
Section 151 of the CPC seeking for impleadment on the ground
that he is the owner in possession of 26 guntas of the land in
Sy.No.42/1A of Bhuvanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli
Taluk, contending that boundaries referred in the decree and
the sale deed would prevail but not the extent. The Trial Court
rejected the said application by recording the reason that as
per the sale deed, the petitioner purchased only 9 guntas of the
land and no cogent material is placed to accept the contention
that the petitioner is the owner of 26 guntas of the land. I do
not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the
Trial Court. The finding recorded by the Trial Court in its
judgment and decree in O.S.No.233/2001, the schedule to the
decree, the registered sale deed dated 08.03.1970 and other
material on record clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has
NC: 2025:KHC:26274
HC-KAR
failed to establish that he is the owner in possession of 26
guntas of the land in Sy.No.42/1A of Bhuvanahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. Hence, the petitioner is not a
necessary and proper party in FDP No.6/2010.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
8. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the
pending interlocutory application does not survive for
consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
