Karnataka High Court
Smt. Divya Kumari vs Sri. Ratan Lal on 26 November, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49078
WP No. 11070 of 2024
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. 11070 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. DIVYA KUMARI
AGED 27 YEARS,
W/O LOKESH SUTHAR
D/O S ASHOK KUMAR.
2. SMT. DIMPLE KUMARI
AGED 25 YEARS
W/O DHIRAJ KUMAR SHARMA N
D/ ASHOK KUMAR.
PETITIONER NOs.1 AND 2
RESIDING AT NO.32/2
BYSANI ENCLAVE, FLAT GD,
SHANKAR MUTT MAIN ROAD
SHANKARPURAM BASAVAGUDI
BANGALORE - 560 004.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally
(BY SRI NAYANA TARA B.G, ADV.)
signed by AND:
NANDINI M S
Location:
HIGH COURT 1. SRI RATAN LAL
OF MAJOR
KARNATAKA
S/O ACHALRAM.
NO.169, 15TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK
HANUMANTHNAGAR,
BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 050.
2. SMT. RADHA DEVI
MAJOR
W/O RATAN LAL
NO.169, 15TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK
HANUMANTHNAGAR,
BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49078
WP No. 11070 of 2024
HC-KAR
BANGALORE - 560 050.
3. SRI S ASHOK KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O SONA RAMJI
RESIDING AT 1022 ADITYA
15TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE
1ST BLOCK, HANUMANTHNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 019.
4. SMT. INDIRA BAI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O S. ASHOK KUMAR
RESIDING AT 1022, ADITYA
15TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE
1ST BLOCK, HANUMANTHNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 019.
5. VISHWA BHARATHI HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
NO.35, RATHNA VILAS ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHOKKAREDDY, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI SHARATH MULIA, ADV., FOR R-3 & R-4;
R-5 SERVED & UNREPRSENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 13/03/2024 PASSED BY THE XTH ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-26) BANGALORE IN OS 1704/2020 AT
ANNEXURE-J IMPLEADING THE PETITIONERS AS DEFENDANTS NO. 4
AND 5.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:49078
WP No. 11070 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioners are 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 13.03.2024 passed by the Court of
X Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on IA No.8 in
OS No.1704/2020 vide Annexure-J.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have filed OS
No.1704/2020 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru,
initially against respondent Nos.3 to 5 in this writ petition,
seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in
respect of the suit schedule property. The original defendants
had filed their written statement in the suit and contested the
suit claim. IA No.8 was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in OS
No.1704/2020 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC with a prayer to
implead the petitioners herein as party defendant Nos.4 and 5
in the suit. The said application was opposed by the petitioners
herein who are the proposed defendants, by filing objections.
The Trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed IA No.8
NC: 2025:KHC:49078
HC-KAR
and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Gift
Deeds were executed in favour of petitioners by defendant
No.2, who is the mother of the petitioners and the said
transaction is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882. She submits that a transferee pendente lite need not be
necessarily arrayed as a defendant in the suit. In the present
case, since the parents of the petitioners have been contesting
the suit, presence of the petitioners in the suit is not at all
necessary. She submits that petitioners are ready and willing to
undertake before the Court that they shall be bound by the
decree to be passed in the suit, even in their absence. In
support of her arguments, she has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.
Anjanappa and Others vs. A. Prabhakar and Others - Civil
Appeal Nos.1180-1181/2025 disposed off on 29.01.2025.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2
submits that during the pendency of the suit, two separate Gift
Deeds have been executed in respect of the suit schedule
NC: 2025:KHC:49078
HC-KAR
property by defendant No.2 in favour of the petitioners. The
plaintiffs had filed IA No.7 with a prayer to amend the plaint
and the said application has been allowed and in the amended
prayers, even the Gift Deeds which are executed in favour of
the petitioners herein are challenged. Therefore, petitioners
become necessary party to the suit. He, accordingly, prays to
dismiss the petition.
6. Suit in OS No.1704/2020 is filed by respondent Nos.1 and
2 herein with a prayer to declare that registered Sale Deeds
executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, who
is his wife are sham and created documents which are void ab
initio and not binding on the plaintiffs or on the suit schedule
property. A consequential relief of permanent injunction is also
sought in the said suit. During the pendency of the suit, two
separate Gift Deeds were executed by defendant No.2 on
28.06.2023 in favour of the petitioners herein, which were
registered in the office of Additional Sub-Registrar,
Basavangudi. Thereafter, IA No.7 was filed on behalf of the
plaintiffs to permit them to amend the plaint by raising
additional prayers challenging the aforesaid two Gift Deeds and
NC: 2025:KHC:49078
HC-KAR
IA No.7 was allowed and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend
the plaint in OS No.1704/2020 and incorporate additional
prayers challenging the Gift Deeds dated 28.06.2023 executed
by defendant No.2 in favour of the petitioners herein, who are
the daughters of defendant Nos.1 and 2. IA No.8 is filed to
implead the petitioners as party defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the
suit.
7. A party can be impleaded in a suit if it is found that the
said party is either necessary or proper party to the
proceedings. Undisputedly, plaintiffs have now questioned the
Gift Deeds executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the
petitioners herein. Since the said transaction has taken place
during the pendency of the suit, though it can be said that the
petitioners, who are transferee pendente lite are not necessary
parties to the suit, they are definitely proper parties to the suit.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Anjanappa
(supra) has observed that for the purpose of impleading a
transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances of the
case should be gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the
Court can permit such a party to come on record, either under
NC: 2025:KHC:49078
HC-KAR
Order I Rule 10 of CPC or under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC as a
general principle. It is further held in the said case that a
transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a
matter of right. In the said case, it is also observed that
impleadment of transferee pendente lite would depend upon
the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available
on record.
8. In the present case, as noted herein above, the mother of
the petitioners has executed two Gift Deeds dated 28.06.2023
during the pendency of the suit and thereafter, plaint in OS
No.1704/2020 was permitted to be amended and now an
additional prayer is raised challenging the aforesaid two Gift
Deeds executed by defendant No.2 in favour of petitioners
herein and therefore, petitioners becomes a proper party to the
suit, so as to bind them with the outcome of the suit. Under the
circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the
order impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
9. At this juncture, a request is made on behalf of the
petitioners that in view of the pendency of this writ petition, the
petitioners have not filed their written statement and they may
NC: 2025:KHC:49078
HC-KAR
be granted reasonable time to file their written statement in OS
No.1704/2020.
10. Considering the said submission, petitioners are granted
four weeks time from today to file their written statement
before the Trial Court in OS No.1704/2020.
11. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending IA
No.1/2025 and 2/2025 do not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, they are disposed off.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
DN
