Karnataka High Court
Shri B K Anil Kumar vs Sri M Ganesh @ Ganeshappa on 11 March, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10415
WP No. 35097 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 35097 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI B K ANIL KUMAR
S/O SHRI B M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
NO.99, BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BEGUR HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 083.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G A VISWANATHA REDDY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SRI M GANESH @ GANESHAPPA
by ROOPA R U S/O LATE G MUNISWAMAPPA
Location: AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 2. SMT LAKSHMAMMA
W/O SRI M GANESH @ GANESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. SMT GEETHA
D/O SRI M GANESH @ GANESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
4. SMT HEMALATHA
D/O SRI M GANESH @ GANESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10415
WP No. 35097 of 2018
5. SMT JYOTHI
D/O SRI M GANESH @ GANESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE
R/A VADDARAPALYA VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 083.
6. SRI SHIVASWAMY
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
7. SRI NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
8. SRI MAHESH
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
9. SRI BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
10. SMT GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
11. SMT BHUDEVAMMA
D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
12. SRI HARI
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
13. SMT VARALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10415
WP No. 35097 of 2018
14. SMT SARASWATHI
D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
15. SMT AMBUJA
D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 15
R/A NO.31/8, 4TH CROSS
IST MAIN, J P NAGAR
8TH PHASE, 2ND BLOCK
GOTTIGERE POST
BANGALORE-560 083.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NARAYANA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R15)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 29.05.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CH-10) IN
O.S.NO.817/16 BY ALLOWING I.A.NO.4 VIDE ANNX-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:10415
WP No. 35097 of 2018
ORAL ORDER
Plaintiff/petitioner in O.S.No.817/2016 pending
consideration by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (for short Trial Court) is before this Court being
aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2018 allowing the
application in I.A.No.4 filed by the respondent Nos.6 to 15
under order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC permitting them to be
impleaded as defendant Nos. 6 to 15 in the suit.
2. The above suit in O.S.No.817/2016 has been filed
by the plaintiff herein for the relief of specific performance of an
agreement dated 05.11.2007 purported to have been executed
by defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in respect of the suit schedule
property. The impleading applicants/the proposed defendant
Nos.6 to 15 in their application in I.A.No.4 contended that the
defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are not having any share, right, title
interest of the suit schedule property, inasmuch as, the suit
schedule property belongs to their mother Smt.Lakshmamma
wife of late Muniswamappa. That upon demise of said
Lakshmamma the proposed defendants became entitled for the
suit schedule property. It is also contended that portion of the
NC: 2025:KHC:10415
land has already been acquired by Bangalore Development
Authority and in the claim arising out of compensation to be
paid, an MFA No. 7539 /2005 was filed before this Court, in
which the entitlement of the applicants has been established
and confirmed. As such, it is contended that the suit is filed by
the plaintiff in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and in order
to avoid any multiplicity proceedings they are required to be
impleaded in the said suit. Accepting the said contention the
Trial Court has allowed the application. Aggrieved by which, the
petitioner is before this court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
suit is one for specific performance of an agreement. That as on
the date of agreement the records of rights were standing in
the names of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and since the proposed
defendants are not the parties to the said agreement and their
names were also not reflected in the RTC, there was no need
or necessity for the proposed defendants to come on record as
party defendants. That apart bringing them on record would
change the nature and scope of the suit. Hence he submits the
impugned order is required to be set aside.
NC: 2025:KHC:10415
4. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the
proposed respondents 6 to 15 submits that Muniswamappa had
two wives. The defendants 1 to 5 are the children of the first
wife and the proposed defendants 6 to 15 are the children of
second wife namely, Lakshmamma. That in the partition the
suit schedule property has been allotted to Lakshmamma, as
such the proposed defendants became entitled to the share in
the said property. He submits portion of the property belongs
to Lakshmamma was acquired and in the proceedings regarding
payment of compensation, their entitlement has been upheld
and confirmed by this Court in MFA No.7539/2005. He submits
the suit is filed in collusion between the plaintiff and the
defendants 1 to 5 only to deny the entitlement of the proposed
defendants 6 to 15. Hence he submits the presence of these
proposed defendants for effective adjudication of the matter is
necessary. Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard. Perused the records.
6. Though suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner is one for
specific performance of an agreement dated 05.11.2007
purported to have been entered into between the plaintiff and
NC: 2025:KHC:10415
defendants 1 to 5, the proposed defendants 6 to 15 contended
that defendants 1 to 5 do not have any share, title, right
interest in the suit schedule property and that the said property
belonged to their mother Smt. Lakshmamma who had been
allotted the said share in a Panchayat Parikath dated
24.04.1994. It appears defendants 1 to 5 had earlier filed a suit
in O.S.No.2064/2004 for relief of partition against the proposed
defendants 6 to 15 and their mother and the said suit has been
dismissed by the judgment decree dated 30.07.2007. It also
appears the defendant No.1 has filed another suit in
O.S.No.9534/2004 which also came to be dismissed on
10.12.2009. Thereafter another suit is filed by defendant No.1
in O.S.No.16859/2006 against one Timmagangappa and others
in respect the very same property for declaration and other
relief. The said suit is still pending consideration.
7. From the records it is clear that the defendant Nos.
1 to 5 seem to be filing the suit after suit in respect of the very
same property against persons including the proposed
defendants herein. Further defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and
defendant Nos. 6 to 15 are stated to be the children of one
Muniswamappa from his first and second wife respectively.
NC: 2025:KHC:10415
Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and
the proposed defendant Nos. 6 to 15 are strangers. Since the
very claim of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 to be the owners of the
subject property upon which they seem to have entered into an
agreement with the plaintiff is disputed by defendant Nos. 6 to
15 and their presence is necessary for proper and effective
adjudication of the dispute and also to avoid any multiplicity of
proceedings. It is appropriate that the impugned order that is
passed by the Trial Court not be interfered with.
8. No merits warranting interference. Petition is
dismissed accordingly confirming the impugned order dated
29.05.2018 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.817/2016 on
I.A.No.4.
SD/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
RU
