Sri. Shreyas C v. Smt. Sunandamma

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39855( WP(No.(8752(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010188502026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

TH DATED(THIS(THE(17 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(SMT.(JUSTICE(LALITHA(KANNEGANTI(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(8752(OF(2026((GM-CPC)(

BETWEEN:(( ( SRI.,SHREYAS,C, S/O,LATE,H.,CHANDRA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,36,YEARS, THR/AT.,NO.,345,,9 ,MAIN,

J.P.NAGAR,,DOLLORS,LAYOUT, BANGALORE,560,078, …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,VISWANATHA,REDDY,G.A,,ADVOCATE), AND:( (

1., SMT.,SUNANDAMMA,

W/O,N.,KRISHNA,REDDY, D/O,LATE,LAKSHMAIAH,AND, Digitally signedtiby SMT.,LAKSHMAKKA, SUVARNA0T AGED,ABOUT,69,YEARS,Location: HIGH R/AT,ANJANEYA,SWAMY,TEMPLE, COURT0OF KARNATAKA SEETHARM,PALYA, MADADEVAPURA,POST, WHITE,FIELD,ROAD, BANGALORE-560,048, ,

2., SRI.,YELLA,REDDY, S/O,LATE,LAKSHMAIAH,AND, SMT,LAKSHMAKKA, AGED,ABOUT,66,YEARS, NDR/AT,H.P.ROAD,,2 ,CROSS, , , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39855( WP(No.(8752(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010188502026( ( ( SINGAIAHNA,PALYA, MAHADEVAPURA,POST, BANGALORE-560,048, ,

3., SMT.,PAPAMMA, W/O,LATE,KODATHI,NAYANA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,93,YEARS, ,

4., SRI.,N.,MUNIREDDY, S/O,LATE,KODATHI,NAYANA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,88,YEARS,, ,

5., SRI.,N.,SRINIVAS,REDDY, S/O,LATE,KODATHI,NAYANA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,86,YEARS,, ,

6., SRI.,N.,RAMAREDDY, S/O,LATE,KODATHI,NAYANA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,80,YEARS, ,

7., SRI.,N.,HANUMANTHA,REDDY, S/O,LATE,KODATHI,NAYANA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,78,YEARS,, ,

8., SMT.,P.,LAKSHMI, W/O.,LATE,N.,KRISHNA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,75,YEARS,, ,

9., SRI.,SUMAN, S/O,LATE,N.,KRISHNA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS,, ,

10., SMT.,SUMITHA, D/O,LATE,N.,KRISHNA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS,, ,

11., SMT.,KANTHAMMA, W/O,LATE,N.,GOVINDA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,63,YEARS,, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39855( WP(No.(8752(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010188502026( ( ( ,

12., SRI.,NARAYANA,REDDY, D/O,LATE,N.,GOVINDA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,63,YEARS,, ,

13., SMT.,NANDA, D/O,LATE,N.,GOVINDA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,63,YEARS,, ,

14., SRI.,N.,NANJAREDDY, S/O,LATE,KODATHI,NAYANA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,65,YEARS,, ,

15., SMT.,JAYAMMA, D/O,LATE,KODATHI,NAYANA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,73,YEARS,, ,

16., SMT.,INDRAMMA, D/O,LATE,KODATHI,NAYANA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,65,YEARS,, ,

17., SMT.,PARVATHAMMA, D/O,LATE,KODATHI,NAYANA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,63,YEARS,, , RESPONDENT,NOS.3,TO,17,ARE, R/AT,MYLASANDRA,VILLAGE,, BEGUR,HOBLI,,BANGALORE, SOUTH,TALUK-560,100, , , SMT.,RATHNAMMA, D/O,LATE,MUNITHAYAMMA, , W/O,LATE,M.C.,NARAYAN,REDDY, SINCE,DEAD,, ,

18., SRI.,C.N.,SAMPANGIRAM,REDDY, S/O,LATE,M.C.,NARAYANA,REDDY, , AGED,ABOUT,53,YEARS,, , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39855( WP(No.(8752(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010188502026( ( ( ,

19., SRI.,APPAIAH,REDDY, S/O,LATE,M.C.,NARAYANA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,51,YEARS,, ,

20., SMT.,YELLAMMA,@,PAAPA, D/O,LATE,M.C.,NARAYANA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS,, , RESPONDENT,NOS.18,TO,20,ARE, R/AT,CHENNAPURA,VILLAGE, N.,YELLAVALLI,,AVANI,HOBLI,, BELLAM,POST,,MULBAGILU,TALUK,, KOLAR,DISTRICT-563,103, ,

21., SRI.,VENKATESH,REDDY, S/O,LATE,KRISHNA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS, R/AT,NO.,35,,SHARADA, TH TH15 ,,CROSS,,14 ,MAIN, THHSR,LAYOUT,,4 ,,SECTOR, BANGALORE-560,034, ,

22., SRI.,LOKESH,REDDY, S/O,LATE,KRISHNA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS, R/AT,MYLASANDRA,VILLAGE, BEGUR,HOBLI, BANGALORE,SOUTH,TALUK-560,100, ,

23., SRI.,AMARESH,REDDY, S/O,LATE,KRISHNA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS, R/AT,DEVARACHIKKANNA,HALLI,VILLAGE, BILEKHAHALLI,POST,,BEGUR,HOBLI, BANGALORE-560,068, , , , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39855( WP(No.(8752(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010188502026( ( (

24., SMT.,LAKSHMI,DEVI, D/O,LATE,KRISHNA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,54,YEARS, THR/AT,NO.76,,6 ,CROSS, BEGUR,ROAD,,HONGASANDR,VILLAGE,, BEGUR,HOBLI,,BANGALORE-560,068, , , SRI.,MUNIREDDY, S/O,LATE,MUNITHAYAMMA,, , MAJOR, R/AT,DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI,VILLAGE,, BILEKAHALLI,POST,,BEGUR,HOBLI, , BANGALORE,SOUTH,TALUK,, SINCE,DIED, , ,

25., SMT.,M.,BHARATHI, D/O,LATE,MUNI,REDDY, W/O,SRI.,RAM,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS,, R/AT,NO.,104,,VIGNESH,APARTMENT, DC,HALLI,,MAIN,ROAD,, BANGALORE-560,068, ,

26., SMT.,M.,ARATHI, D/O,LATE,MUNI,REDDY, W/O,SRI.,VENKATESH,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS, STR/AT.,NO.,11,,1 ,CROSS, NO.22,,NARASIMHAIAH,LAYOUT, NDRMV,2 ,STAGE,,LOTTE,GOLLAHALLI,, BANGALORE-560,094, ,

27., SRI.,ANIL,KUMAR, S/O,LATE,MUNI,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,51,YEARS, THR/AT.,NO.,35,,4 ,MAIN, JAI,BHEEMA,NAGAR, STMADIWALA,,BTM,1 ,STAGE, BANGALORE-560,068, , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39855( WP(No.(8752(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010188502026( ( (

28., SRI.,M.,RAMESH,REDDY, S/O,N.,MUNI,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,57,YEARS, ,

29., KUMARI.,R.,KALPASHRI, D/O,,RAMESH,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,33,YEARS, ,

30., SRI.,MANISH,REDDY, S/O,RAMESH,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,28,YEARS, ,

31., SRI.,NARAYANASWAMY,REDDY, S/O,MUNI,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS, ,

32., SRI.,N.,ROHAN, S/O,NARAYANASWAMY,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,20,YEARS, , RESPONDENT,NOS.28,TO,32,ARE, R/AT,MYLASANDRA,VILLAGE, BEGUR,HOBLI, BANGALORE,SOUTH,TALUK, , , SRI.,CHANDRA,REDDY,, SINCE,DEAD,, , ,

33., SRI.,C.,BREJESH,REDDY, S/O,LATE,CHANDRA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS, ,

34., SRI.,C.,AJAY,KUMAR, S/O,LATE,CHANDRA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS, ,

35., SMT.,PAVITHRA, D/O,LATE,CHANDRA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,54,YEARS, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39855( WP(No.(8752(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010188502026( ( ( ,

36., SMT.,SHOBA, W/O,LATE,CHANDRA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,54,YEARS, , RESPONDENT,NOS.,33,TO,36,ARE,, THR/AT.,NO.,345,,9 ,CROSS, DOLLARS,COLONY,J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560,078, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.,ANUPAMA,M.V,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,TO,R2;, ,,,,,,R20,,R21,,R26,,R27,AND,R34,ARE,SERVED;, ,,,,,,NOTICE,TO,R3,TO,R36,,ARE,DISPENSED, ,,,,,,WITH,VIDE,ORDER,DATED,25.06.2026), , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, QUASH,THE,ORDER,DTD,12.01.2026,PASSED,BY,THE,COURT, OF, THE, SECOND, ADDL., SENIOR, CIVIL, JUDGE,, BANGALORE, RURAL, DISTRICT, VIDE, ANNX-A, BANGALORE, IN, O.S, NO., 854/2013,TO,IMPLEADING,HIM,AS,A,PARTY,TO,THE,SUIT,ON, IA,NO.,3., THIS, WRIT, PETITION, HAVING, BEEN, HEARD, AND, RESERVED, ON, 25.06.2026,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRONOUNCEMENT, OF, ORDER, THIS, DAY,, THE, COURT, PRONOUNCED,THE,FOLLOWING:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,SMT.,JUSTICE,LALITHA,KANNEGANTI, , CAV(ORDER( Aggrieved, by, the, order, passed, on, I.A.No.3/2025, in, O.S.No.854/2013, dated, 12.01.2026, by, II, Addl., Senior, Civil, Judge,,Bengaluru,Rural,District,,Bengaluru.,,

¶2The facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit in O.S.No.854/2013, on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, seeking reliefs of partition and other reliefs. On 01.09.2025, during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC to implead the proposed defendant No. 29 as a proper and necessary party, and the trial court, by the impugned order, dismissed the application.

¶3While dismissing the application the trial Court has observed that it is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession. During the stage of further cross-examination of DW.3, the applicant had filed the instant application. It is important to note that the applicant is not a family member of the plaintiff or defendant Nos.1 to 26. The applicant happens to be the donee under the Gift deed executed by defendant No.27. Since the suit is for partition and separate possession, and the suit is at the stage for further cross-examination of DW.3 and as the suit is at the verge of disposal, the trial Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have to establish the right over the suit schedule

property. In a suit for partition, the essential requirements are that all the properties of the joint family have to be included and all the family members have to be included. In the instant suit, the applicant herein is not a family member. Under these circumstances, in the absence of the present applicant, an effective adjudication of the case can be made. If the plaintiffs succeed in the suit, then in the FDP proceedings the applicant can be added, and their equities can be worked therein. Therefore, the trial Court is of the opinion that the presence of the applicant is not at all required for effective adjudication of the case on merits and accordingly, the trial Court had dismissed the I.A.

¶4Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the properties Sy.No.90/1 and Sy.No.90/4, belonged to defendant Nos.27 and 28. They executed a registered Gift Deed in respect of the said properties in favour of the petitioner dated 01.04.2013. The applicant, being the donee under the Gift Deed, made an application to be impleaded as a party to the suit. The trial Court failed to consider that he is a proper and necessary party

to participate in the proceedings and rejected I.A.No.3 without considering that the property in question is also the subject matter of the suit. It is further submitted that defendant Nos.27 and 28, who acquired land measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy.No.90/1 and 23 guntas in Sy.No.90/4 of Mylasandra Village, executed the Gift Deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2013. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application to be impleaded as a party to the suit. The trial Court, instead of considering that he is also a necessary party in the suit, reached the wrong conclusion and dismissed the application. It is submitted that all questions, including whether the property is joint family property or not, have to be decided during the course of the trial. It is submitted that the trial Court's observation that his right is to be included in the FDP proceedings is bad in law and needs to be set aside, and the petitioner shall be impleaded as a party to the suit; otherwise, it will cause a lot of hardship to him.

¶5Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are represented by an Advocate. Respondent Nos.20, 21, 26, 27 and 34 are served,

but there is no representation. Notice to respondent Nos.3 to 36 is dispensed with vide order dated 25.06.2026.

¶6Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that in the suit for partition, where the rights of the members of the family have to be decided, the trial Court has rightly considered all these aspects and has not completely shut the doors to the impleadment of the applicant and has observed that his rights can be adjudicated during the execution proceedings. He further submits that the trial Court was right in dismissing the application, and that the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings.

¶7In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the order passed by the trial Court, the issue that falls for consideration is: "Whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC solely on the ground that the applicant sought impleadment in the final decree proceedings?"

¶8Order I Rule 10 CPC confers upon the Court a discretion to add any person as a party whose presence before the Court is necessary or proper for an effective and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the dispute. The exercise of such discretion must be founded on well-recognised judicial principles and not on extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw Vs. Farida Khatoon1 held that a transferee pendente lite is a representative in the interest of the transferor. Though not a necessary party in every case, the transferee may be impleaded as a proper party, and his presence may be facilitated for complete and effective adjudication. In the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd.2, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the question of impleadment and held that the pendente lite purchaser can be impleaded by applying the principles underlying Order I Rule 10 of CPC and that such discretion has to be exercised judiciously.

1 (2005) 11 SCC 403 2 (2013) 5 SCC 397

¶9A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge has not adverted to the nature of the petitioner's interest, the character of this transfer, or the necessity or propriety of the petitioner's presence for effective adjudication. None of the parameters governing Order I Rule 10 CPC has been appreciated by the trial Court. The sole reason assigned for dismissal of the application is that the petitioner seeks his impleadment in the final decree proceedings. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an order cannot be sustained. The availability of an opportunity to seek impleadment at subsequent stages of the proceedings cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground to refuse consideration of an application otherwise maintainable under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The jurisdiction vested in the Court cannot be declined merely by relegating the applicant to a later stage without first determining whether the applicant is entitled to be impleaded in the pending suit.

¶10There is no dispute that the partition suit continues until the passing of the final decree, and in an appropriate case the interest of the transferee may also be protected in the final

decree proceedings. However, such circumstances do not deter the trial Court from exercising the discretion vested in it under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. The trial Court has to decide the application on its own merits. A blanket rejection solely on the premise of the applicant's impleadment in the final decree proceedings amounts to a failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by the Court. Hence, the impugned order needs to be set aside, and the issue is answered in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order dated 12.01.2026 passed in I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.854/2013 by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court. ii. The trial Court shall consider the application filed by the petitioner on its merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. iii. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2