Karnataka High Court

Sri Prashanth T vs Sri Venkateshappa on 26 November, 2025

Author: S Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty

                                                -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:49072
                                                         WP No. 3347 of 2023


                    HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                             DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                              BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 3347 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI PRASHANTH T
                   S/O THIMMARAYAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
                   R/O ETTAKODI VILLAGE - 563 160
                   LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
                   KOLAR DISTRICT.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI ANIL KETHANA K.M, ADV., FOR
                       SRI VARAPRASAD K, ADV.)
                   AND:

                   1.   SRI VENKATESHAPPA
                        S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
                        AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
                        R/O JEEMANGALAM
                        BAGALUR POST - 635 103
                        HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI
Digitally signed        DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.
by NANDINI M
S
Location: HIGH
                   2.   SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA
COURT OF                @ MUNIYAMMA
KARNATAKA               W/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
                        AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
                        R/O ETTAKODI VILLAGE - 563 160
                        LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
                        KOLAR DISTRICT.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI B. MANJUNATH, ADV., FOR R-1;
                   SRI P. MANUCHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R-2)

                        THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE
                   CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
                   DATED 04/02/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
                                    -2-
                                                      NC: 2025:KHC:49072
                                                 WP No. 3347 of 2023


HC-KAR



AND J.M.F.C MALUR ON I.A.NO.5 IN F.D.P.NO. 10/2013 VIDE
ANNEXURE-N.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                            ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set aside the order

dated 04.02.2023 passed on I.A.No.V in FDP No.10 of 2013 by

the Court I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur, Kolar District.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Suit in O.S.No.306 of 1994 was filed before the

jurisdictional civil Court by respondent no.1 herein initially

against one Chikkamuniyappa, who is the husband of

respondent no.2 herein. The said suit was decreed and it was

held that plaintiff was entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit

schedule properties, which consisted of three items of

properties. Subsequently, the plaintiff, namely Venkateshappa,

had initiated final decree proceedings before the trial court in

FDP No.10 of 2013 and it appears that during the pendency of

the final decree proceedings, defendant no.1 in O.S.No.306 of

NC: 2025:KHC:49072

HC-KAR

1994, namely Chukkamuniyappa, who is the husband of

respondent no.2 herein had died and therefore respondent no.2

and her children were brought on record as his legal

representatives. In the said proceedings, I.A.No.V was filed on

behalf of the petitioner to implead him as party respondent

no.3 and the said application was opposed by the respondent

no.1 herein. The trial Court vide the order impugned has

dismissed I.A.No.V filed on behalf of the petitioner and it is

under these circumstances, petitioner / impleading applicant is

before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Item

Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.306 of

1994 are the absolute properties of respondent no.2 herein.

She had purchased the same under a registered sale deed

dated 28.10.1974 ( Annexure-F). Though the original defendant

no.1 in his written statement had specifically mentioned about

the same, trial Court has failed to appreciate the said aspect of

the matter. After the legal representatives of original defendant

no.1 had come on record in the final decree proceedings, even

they have filed an objection stating that suit schedule Item

NC: 2025:KHC:49072

HC-KAR

Nos.2 and 3 properties are the absolute properties of

respondent no.2 herein and therefore the said properties are

not the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant

no.1. He submits that respondent no.2 has executed a

registered gift deed in respect of the said property in favour of

the petitioner herein, who is her grandson. Accordingly, he

prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting

respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner and respondent

no.2 have challenged the preliminary decree passed in

O.S.No.306 of 1994 in R.A.No.25 of 2021 which is pending

consideration. The trial Court has held that defendant no.1 -

Chikkamuniyappa had failed to prove that Item nos.2 and 3 of

the suit schedule property are the absolute property of his wife

Chikkamuniyamma and they are not available for partition.

Under the circumstances, petitioner who claims right under

Chikkamuniyamma on the basis of the gift deed said to have

been executed by her in respect of the said two properties

cannot be impleaded in the final decree proceedings. He

NC: 2025:KHC:49072

HC-KAR

submits that therefore the trial Court was justified in rejecting

the application. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show

that respondent no.1 herein of claiming to be the son born to

the first wife of Chikkamuniyappa, had filed O.S.No.306 of

1994 seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule

property which consisted of three items of land. In the said

suit, Chikkamuniyappa (defendant no. 1) had filed a written

statement contending that Item Nos.2 and 3 properties are the

absolute properties of his wife Chikkamuniyamma and

therefore, they are not available for partition. The trial Court

however had decreed the suit and had held that plaintiff is

entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. It is not

in dispute that as against the judgment and decree passed in

O.S.No.306 of 1994, petitioner and respondent no.2 herein

have filed R.A.No.25 of 2021 which is pending consideration

before the first appellate Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced

copy of sale deed dated 28.10.1974 under which respondent

no.2 herein had purchased Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit

NC: 2025:KHC:49072

HC-KAR

schedule property for valid consideration. Perusal of the said

document would clearly go to show that under the said deed,

Smt. Chikkamuniyamma, who is respondent no.2 herein had

purchased Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule property in

O.S.No.306 of 1994, from Smt. Venkatamma, wife of Sri

Venkataramaiah resident of Narayanakere Village,

Anugondanahally Hobli, Hosakote Taluk for valid sale

consideration. Therefore, there is prima facie material to show

that respondent no.2 - Smt. Chikkamuniyamma was the

absolute owner of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule

property. A contention to the said effect was raised in the

written statement filed by her husband, who was defendant

no.1 in O.S.No.306 of 1994. After the death of defendant No.1

his wife, Chikkamuniyamma and her children were brought on

record as his legal representatives and they have filed objection

in FDP No.10 of 2013 contending that Item Nos.2 and 3 of the

suit schedule property in O.S.No.306 of 1994 are the absolute

property of Chikkamuniyamma and they were not available for

partition. Chikkamuniyamma has executed a registered gift

deed dated 07.11.2018 in respect of the aforesaid two items of

property in favour of her grandson who is the petitioner herein

NC: 2025:KHC:49072

HC-KAR

and on the strength of the said gift deed the petitioner has filed

an application for impleading him as party respondent in the

FDP No.10 of 2013. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the

aforesaid aspects of the matter and has erred in rejecting

I.A.No.V filed by the petitioner to implead him as party

respondent in FDP No.10 of 2013. Since the petitioner claims

right over Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit property based on the

registered gift deed said to have been executed by his

grandmother Smt. Chikkamuniyamma, who appears to have

purchased the aforesaid property under a registered sale deed

dated 28.10.1974, I am of the opinion that trial Court was not

justified in rejecting the petitioner's application to implead him

as party respondent No.3 in FDP No.10 of 2013.

8. Accordingly the following:-

ORDER

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 04.02.2023, passed on I.A.No.V in FDP No.10 of 2013 by the Court I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur, Kolar District is set aside and consequently

NC: 2025:KHC:49072

HC-KAR

the prayer made in the said application is allowed.