Karnataka High Court
Smt. I Nagalambike vs Smt. Papamma on 17 November, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47158
WP No. 8484 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 8484 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. I. NAGALAMBIKE
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
D/O S. SHANTHAPPA
W/O I. MAHABALESHWARAPPA
ITTINA HOUSE
KAIKONDARAHALLI
CARMELARAM POST
BENGALURU - 560 035.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. PAPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
D/O LATE N. CHIKKAVENKATAPPA
Digitally signed SIDDANAPURA VILLAGE
by NANDINI M ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
S
Location: HIGH
CHIKKATIRUPATHI POST
COURT OF HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA RURAL DISTRICT - 563 160.
2. SRI VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA
BAGUR VILALGE
ANUGONDANAHALLI
HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 563 160.
3. SRI LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O VENKATESHAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47158
WP No. 8484 of 2024
HC-KAR
BAGUR VILALGE
ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 563 160.
4. SMT. SUJATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
D/O VENKATESHAPAP
BAGUR VILLAGE
ANUGONDANAHALLI
HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 563 160.
5. SRI RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE YELLAPPA
BAGUR VILALGE
ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 563 160.
6. SMT. AMMAYAMMA @ YELLAMMA
D/O LATE CHINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BAGUR VILLAGE
ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
8. SRI YELLAPPA
S/O LATE CHINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS.
9. SMT. BHAYA
D/O LATE KRISHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
10. SMT. PREMA
D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47158
WP No. 8484 of 2024
HC-KAR
11. SMT. MAMATHA
D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
12. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI
D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
13. SMT. VENKATESHAPPA
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
14. SMT. TEJASWINI
D/O LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
15. SRI RAJWALA
S/O LOKESH
AGEDA BOUT 20 YEARS.
16. SRI RAJAPPA
S/O LATE YELLAPP
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
17. SMT. CHANDRAMMA
D/O LATE YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
18. SMT. BHARATHAMMA
D/O LATE YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT GANGALURU VILLAGE
AMUGOMDANAHALLI HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
19. R. MOUNA @ BABY
D/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
20. MOHAN
S/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47158
WP No. 8484 of 2024
HC-KAR
DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT BAGARU VILLAGE
ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK - 562 114.
21. SMT. VENKATALAKSHNAMMA
W/O YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
22. PRAKASH
S/O YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
23. SWATHANTHRA
S/O YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
DEFENDANTS R/AT BAGURU VILLAGE
ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
24. N. BABURAJ
S/O LATE P NARASIMHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT KUDLU VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR C.S, ADV.., FOR R-1;
SRI B. SOMASHKAR NAIDU, ADV., FOR R-4;
V/O/DTD 22.07.2024, NOTICE TO R-2, R-3 & R-5 IS H/S;
R-25, R-13, R-15, R-16, R-8, R-24, R-17,
R-18, R-10, R-19, R-11 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED
V/O DTD 28.10.2025, NOTICE TO R-6, R-7, R-12,
R-14, R-19, R-20, R-21, R-22, R-23 ARE H/S)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
06/03/2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
HOSAKOTE ON IA NO. 1/2024 IN OS NO. 410/2022 (OLD NO.
637/2016 IS AT ANNEXURE-A.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:47158
WP No. 8484 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant No.5 is 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 06.03.2024 passed on
IA No.1/2024 in OS No.410/2022 (Old No.637/2016) by the
Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. OS No.637/2016 (New No.410/2022) is filed by
respondent No.1 herein before the jurisdictional Civil Court,
Hoskote, seeking the relief of declaration of title in respect of
the suit schedule properties. Contesting defendants including
the petitioner herein have filed written statement in the said
suit and have opposed the suit claim. IA No.1/2024 was filed
on behalf of the petitioner herein in OS No.410/2022 under
Section 151 of CPC to club OS No.410/2022 with OS
No.2456/2022 and OS No.3121/2022. The said application was
NC: 2025:KHC:47158
HC-KAR
dismissed by the Trial Court vide the order impugned and being
aggrieved by the same, defendant No.5 is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition and submits that relief sought for
in all three suits insofar as it relates to petitioner herein is
common. Some of the parties and some of the suit schedule
properties are also common. If the three suits are not clubbed,
there are chances of contradictory findings being recorded by
the Trial Court. To avoid the same, the Trial Court ought to
have allowed IA No.1/2024. In support of his arguments, he
has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Chitivalasa Jute Mills vs. Jaypee Rewa
Cement - (2004) 3 SCC 85 and Prem Lala Nahata and
Another vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria - (2007) 2 SCC 551.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent has
opposed the prayer made in the petition. He submits that suit
in OS No.410/2022 is at the stage of defendants' evidence and
in the other two suits, issues are yet to be framed. Even cause
of action and relief sought for in the three suits are different.
NC: 2025:KHC:47158
HC-KAR
Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting IA
No.1/2024. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. The suit in OS No.410/2022 (Old No.637/2016) is filed by
respondent No.1 herein seeking relief of declaration of title in
respect of Item Nos.1 to 3 of suit schedule properties and also
to declare that the Sale Deeds dated 21.06.2005 and
22.06.2005 are not binding on the plaintiff.
7. Perusal of the pleadings in the present case would go to
show that petitioner who is defendant No.5 in OS No.637/2016
is the purchaser of the suit schedule properties and according
to the plaintiff, she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule
properties and defendant Nos.1 to 4 had no right or title to
execute Sale Deeds in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of
the suit schedule properties. The suit in OS No.637/2016 is at
the stage of recording defendants' evidence. At this stage, IA
No.1/2024 was filed on behalf of the petitioner in OS
No.637/2016 (New No.410/2022). Learned counsel for
contesting respondent has brought to the notice of this Court
that in OS No.3121/2022 there are as many as 14 defendants
and in OS No.3456/2022 there are as many as 19 defendants,
NC: 2025:KHC:47158
HC-KAR
whereas in the present suit, there are only five defendants. He
has also pointed out that the suit schedule properties in the
aforesaid three suits are different. It is also not in dispute that
stages of the three cases are also different. In the other two
suits, which are sought to be clubbed with OS No.410/2022,
pleadings are yet to be completed, whereas OS No.410/2022,
is at the stage of recording defendants' evidence. The Trial
Court having appreciated all these aspects of the matter has
rightly dismissed IA No.1/2024.
8. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Chitivalasa Jute Mills (supra) and Prem Lala Nahata (supra)
cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the present case having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the
matter. It is trite that judgments can be relied as precedents
only in the event, they are applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand.
9. It is not in dispute that all the three suits are pending
before the same Court and therefore, the apprehension
expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in event,
three suits are not clubbed, there are chances of contradictory
NC: 2025:KHC:47158
HC-KAR
findings being recorded appears to be misconceived. Even
otherwise to avoid any such situation, the Trial Court can be
requested by the parties to take up all the three cases on the
same day. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good
ground to entertain this petition. According, the petition is
dismissed.
10. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending
interlocutory application if any, does not survive for
consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed off.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
DN
