Smt. Latha Prakash v. Smt Venkatalakshmamma

NC:(2025:KHC:54500( WP(No.(1755(of(2023( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(19 (DAY(OF(DECEMBER,(2025( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(VISHWAJITH(SHETTY( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(1755(OF(2023((GM-CPC)( BETWEEN:(( ( SMT.,LATHA,PRAKASH, W/O,SRI,PRAKASH, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS, R/AT,NO.35/16,,2ND,FLOOR,, LANGFORD,ROAD,CROSS,

BENGLAURU-560025, REPRESENTED,BY,HER,GPA,HOLDER, SRI.PRANAYA,PRAKASH, S/O,PRAKASH, AGED,ABOUT,34,YEARS,

R/AT,NO.35/16,,2ND,FLOOR,, LANFGORD,ROAD,,CROSS, BENGALURU,-,560,025., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI,LOKESH,K,,ADV.,,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI,VIJAYA,KUMAR,K,,ADV.),

( AND:( Digitally signedtiby ( NANDINI0M0S 1., SMT.,VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, Location: W/O,LATE,KODAIAH, HIGH0COURT AGED,ABOT,61,YEARS,OF KARNATAKA R/AT,BACHENAHATTI,VILLAGE, KQASABA,HOBLI,,MAGADI,TALUK, RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT,,PIN,-,562,120., ,

2., SMT.,PUSHPA, D/O,LATE,KODAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEAS, R/AT,NO.75,,1ST,MAIN,ROAD, 2ND,CROSS,,BEHIND,HVR, KALYANA,MANTAPPA, MAGADI,MAIN,ROAD, BENGALURU,-,560,079., , NC:(2025:KHC:54500( WP(No.(1755(of(2023( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( , , SRI,K.,MUDDURAJ, , SINCE,DEAD,BY,HIS,LRS, , ,

3., SMT.SAVITHA,MUDDURAJ, W/O,LATE,K.MUDDURAJ, AGED,ABOUT,41,YEARS., ,

4., SUMANTHA,YADAV, S/O,LATE,K.,MUDDURAJ, AGED,ABOUT,26,YEARS., ,

5., ABHISHEK,YADAV, S/O,LAE,K.,MUDDURAJ, AGED,ABOUT,24,YEARS., , RESPONDENTS,NO.3,TO,5,ARE,, R/AT,BACHENAHATTI,VILLAGE, KASABA,HOBLI,,MAGADI,TALUK, RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT, PIN,-,562120., ,

6., SRI,B.K.,MARUTHI, S/O,LATE,KODAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,47,YEAS, R/AT,BACHENAHATTI,VILLAGE, KASABA,HOBLI,,MAGADI,TALUK, RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT, PIN,-,562,120., …RESPONDENTS, (R-1,SERVED,,V/O,DTD:11.11.2022,,NOTICE,TO,R-2,IS,D/W, V/O,DTD:03.02.2023,,NOTICE,TO,R-3,RO,R-6,D/W), , , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,CALL,FOR,RECORDS,IN,O.S., NO.450/2014,PENDING,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,ADDITIONAL,SENIOR, CIVIL,JUDGE,AND,JMFC,,AT,MAGADI,,AND,SET,ASIDE,THE,ORDER, DATED,16/09/2022,PASSED,ON,IA,NO.11,FILED,BY,THE,PETITIONER, UNDER, ORDER, 1, RULE, 10(2), READ, WITH, SECTION, 151, OF, THE, CODE, OF, CIVIL, POCEDURE, (AANEXURE-A), AND, CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW,THE,IA,NO.11,,BY,ALLOWING,THIS,WRIT,PETITION., , , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,FINAL,HEARING,,THIS,DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:,

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

¶1The petitioner 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 16.09.2022 passed on I.A.No.XI in O.S.No.450 of 2014 by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi.

¶2Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents who are served in the matter have remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶3Suit in O.S.No.450 of 2015 is filed before the jurisdictional civil Court, Magadi by respondent nos.1 and 2 herein seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, I.A.No.XI was filed by the petitioner herein under Order I Rule 10 of CPC with a prayer to implead him as party defendant in the suit and the Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶4Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, the petitioner has purchased Item no.2 of the suit schedule property from defendant no.1 in the suit under a registered sale deed dated 15.12.2006. The suit in O.S.No.450 of 2015 seeking relief of partition and separate possession is filed much after the aforesaid sale deed under which the petitioner has purchased item no.2 of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff as well as the other defendants had not opposed the prayer made in the application filed on behalf of the petitioner. However, the Trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner is not a coparcener and if the petitioner has got any rights he can work out the same in the final decree proceedings.

¶5Undisputedly, the petitioner is a purchaser of suit schedule item no.2 property and the said property has been purchased by him from defendant no.1. Even prior to filing of the suit, the petitioner is definitely a proper party to the suit if not a necessary party. The Trial Court has failed appreciate this aspect of the matter. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting I.A.No.XI.

¶6Accordingly, the following :- ORDER

Writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 16.09.2022 passed on I.A.No.XI in O.S.No.450 of 2014 by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi is set aside. Consequently, the prayer made in I.A.No.XI is granted. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application, if any, do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed off.

Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS