Karnataka High Court
Smt B Vanajakshi vs Sri Muniyappa on 24 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21956
W.P. No.4125/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.4125/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. B. VANAJAKSHI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
W/O LATE SHAMALINGA NAIK
NO.30, YELCHENAHALLI
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 078.
Digitally signed
by RUPA V 2. SMT. B. BHAGYA
Location: High AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
Court of W/O R. ANANDA
karnataka NO.379, 1ST STAGE
5TH BLOCK, 5TH MAIN ROAD
H B R LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 043.
3. SRI. B. PRAKASH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE P. BELURAPPA
NO.3, 6TH A CROSS
TALACAVERY LAYOUT
AMRUTHAHALLI
BYATARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE-560 064.
4. SMT. B. SHAMALA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
W/O NEELAKANTA
NO.2, YELACHENAHALLI
BEHIND PREMIUM PETROL BUNK
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 078.
5. SMT. SAROJA .B
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O R. VASANTHAKUMAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21956
W.P. No.4125/2019
HC-KAR
NO.17/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD
NEW GUDDAHALLI
MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 026.
6. SMT. NARASAMMA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
W/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA.
7. SMT. S. SOWMYA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
W/O LOKESH.
8. SMT. S. RAMYA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
W/O NARENDRA.
9. KUM. JYOTHI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
D/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA.
NO.6 TO 9 ARE R/AT NO.377
5TH CROSS, CHENNAKESHAVA NILAYA
SHABARI NAGAR, BYTARAYANAPURA
BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 092
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP H.S. ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
S/O LATE JUNJAPPA.
2. SMT. KEMPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
D/O LATE JUNJAPPA.
3. SMT. NAGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
D/O LATE JUNJAPPA.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21956
W.P. No.4125/2019
HC-KAR
4. SRI. KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE JUNJAPPA.
5. SRI. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
D/O LATE JUNJAPPA.
6. SRI. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE JUNJAPPA.
7. SRI. M. MUNIPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O MUNIYAPPA.
8. SRI. M. SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O MUNIYAPPA.
9. SRI. M. MURALI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O MUNIYAPPA.
10. SRI. M. MUKUNDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O MUNIYAPPA.
11. SRI. M. MUNIKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O MUNIYAPPA.
12. SRI. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O SMT. KEMPAMMA.
13. SMT. SHOBHA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
D/O SMT. NAGAMMA.
14. SMT. SUNITHA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
D/O NAGAMMA.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:21956
W.P. No.4125/2019
HC-KAR
15. SMT. ANITHA .K
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
D/O NAGAMMA.
16. SRI. SURESH K
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O KRISHNA.
17. SMT. LATHA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O SRI. MANJUNATHA.
18. SMT. LIKHITHA
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
MINOR
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SRI. MANJUNATHA.
19. SMT. HEMA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O SRI. KUMAR.
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 19
R/AT. YEDIYUR
NAGASANDRA CIRCLE
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 028.
20. SRI. AMJAD BASHA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
S/O LATE ABDUL RASOOL
RESIDING AT NO.31, 1ST FLOOR
SHANTHI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
21. SRI. MOHAMMED SHUAIB
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O MAZHER PASHA
RESIDING AT NO.1
A STREET, COLES ROAD CROSS
MUNESHWARA TEMPLE STREET
BANGALORE-560 005.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:21956
W.P. No.4125/2019
HC-KAR
22. SRI. B. KESHAVA MURTHY
[DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 10.03.2021].
23. DR. PADMARAJAMMA
D/O LATE PANDITH VENKATARAMACHAR
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
24. SMT. RUKMINI DEVI
D/O LATE PANDITH VENKATARAMACHAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
25. DR. VINAY NARAYAN PANDITH
S/O LATE SRI. NARAYANA PANDITH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 23 TO 25 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.1379
SHREEDURGA, 24TH MAIN
24TH CROSS
BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BENGALURU-560 078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VARUN P, ADV., FOR R23
V/O/DTD:06.03.2019, NOTICE TO R1 TO R21 IS D/W
V/O/DTD:10.03.2021 R22 IS DELETED
R24 & R25 ARE SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A, DATED
30.11.2018, PASSED IN O.S.NO.1674/2012 BY THE HON'BLE XXXIV
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE. THE SAME IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & 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
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:21956
W.P. No.4125/2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"1. To issue Writ of Certiorari to
quash the impugned order Annexure-A, dated:
30-11-2018, passed in O.S.No.1647/2012 by the
Hon'ble XXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore. The same is produced at
Annexure-A.
2. To pass any other order as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit considering the facts
and circumstances of the case to meet the ends
of Justice."
2. Sri.Pradeep H.S., learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed suit for
partition and separate possession of the suit schedule
properties against respondent Nos.1 to 21. During the
pendency of the said suit, respondent Nos.23 to 25 filed
an application to implead themselves as defendants in the
said suit and the said application came to be allowed by
the trial Court without appreciating the fact that they are
neither necessary nor proper parties to the said suit. It is
submitted that the petitioners suit is for partition and
separate possession against the family members and
proposed defendants, if they have any right, they should
NC: 2025:KHC:21956
HC-KAR
file a suit for declaration based on the alleged sale deeds
and khatas and they cannot be arrayed as parties to the
suit filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the
property claimed by the proposed defendants is different
and distinct from the property involved in the suit. Hence,
these aspects have not been properly appreciated by the
trial Court and proceeded to allow the application by
impleading respondent Nos.23 to 25 in the suit. Hence, he
seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned
order and dismiss the application.
3. Per contra, Sri.Varun P., learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.23 supports the order of the
trial Court and seeks to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the
respondents and meticulously perused the material
available on record. I have given my anxious consideration
to the submissions advanced on both sides.
NC: 2025:KHC:21956
HC-KAR
5. The petitioners filed O.S.No.1647/2012 seeking
relief of partition and separate possession of the share in a
property claimed to be joint family property. The schedule
shown in the plaint is land bearing Sy.No.30/3 situated at
Yediyur - Nagasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk, now within the limits of BBMP, Thyagaraja
Nagar, Bangalore, measuring 28 guntas attached with 5
guntas of kharab land with boundaries mentioned in the
suit. During the pendency of the said suit, respondent
Nos.23 to 25 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2)
r/w Section 151 of the CPC seeking for impleadment. The
affidavit accompanying the said application indicates that
the suit is filed by the petitioners in collusion with other
defendants to defeat the lawful ownership of respondent
Nos.23 to 25. It is averred that respondent No.25's
paternal grandfather Sri.Pandit Venkatramachar has
purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1958 and
1962. In support of their contentions they have produced
registered sale deeds dated 30.07.1958, 16.07.1962,
NC: 2025:KHC:21956
HC-KAR
29.03.1966 and 14.05.1962. They have also produced the
khata standing in their name in respect of property at
Sy.No.30/3 which is the suit schedule property. The
proposed defendants also produced the certified copies of
the judgment and decrees of the civil Court and up to
Supreme Court referred at paragraph No.11. Considering
these aspects, the trial Court has rightly come to
conclusion that proposed defendants are the owners of the
suit schedule property and they are the necessary parties
to adjudicate the suit. I do not find any error in the finding
recorded by the trial Court under the impugned order
calling for interference in the writ petition. For the
aforementioned reasons, I am of the considered view that
the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is
required to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
