Karnataka High Court
WP/29456/2026 of GIRIJAMMA Vs GANGADHARAIAH on 28 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010645602026 NC: 2026:KHC:53921 WP No. 29456 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 29456 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. GIRIJAMMA D/O LATE MUDLAGIRIYAPPA W/O
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 29456 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
GIRIJAMMA
D/O LATE MUDLAGIRIYAPPA
W/O MAGADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
2.
LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
D/O LATE MUDLAGIRIYAPPA,
W/O RANGANATHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
3.
SOWBHAGYAMMA
D/O LATE MUDLAGIRIYAPPA,
W/O GUDDADA RANGAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT, THIPPEDASARSHALLI VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKUR TALUK.
TUMKURU DISTRICT- 577101.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN B RYAKHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
GANGADHARAIAH
S/O LATE. SANNAGOVINDAPPA
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
AGED 59 YEARS,
2.
THIMMAIAH,
S/O LATE. MUDLAIAH @ MUDLAGIRIYAPPA,
AGED 81 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/ AT THIPPEDASARAHALLI,
KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 577 101.
3.
NARASAMMA,
W/O LATE. CHIKKAGIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT HOLAVANAHALLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMKURU - 577 101.
4.
SHIVANNA,
SO LATE. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
5.
NATARAJU,
S/O LATE. NANJAPPA,
AGED 47 YEARS,
6.
RAVEESHAIAH,
S/O LATE. CHANNAPPA,
AGED 52 YEARS,
7.
GORAMMA,
W/O LATE. SHIVARUDRAIAH,
AGED 69 YEARS,
R4 TO R7 ARE R/AT BATHSANDRA,
KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 577 101.
HC-KAR
8.
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
K.I.A.D.B., MARUTH COMPLEX,
2ND FLOOR, B.H. ROAD, TUMKURU.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.08.2026 IN OS NO. 242/2020
PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
TUMAKURU VIDE ANNX-F AND FURTHER PLEASED TO ALLOW
THE APPLICATION FILED THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNX-D AND
ETC,.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed impugning the order dated 07.08.2026, whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking their impleadment as defendant Nos.7 to 9 in the suit for partition came to be rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ father was cultivating the suit land as a cultivator
HC-KAR
and that, thereafter, the petitioners continued to cultivate the same. It is contended that the petitioners have acquired rights over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. Hence, the petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the suit, particularly when the said property is the subject matter of the partition suit.
3. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order.
4. The suit in O.S. No.242/2020 has been instituted for partition and separate possession. Undoubtedly, the petitioners are not members of the joint family. However, they claim rights over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. The petitioners had earlier instituted O.S. No.341/2018 seeking a declaration of their right by way of adverse possession over the suit schedule property, which came to be dismissed.
5. Moreover, a suit for partition is essentially for determination of the rights of the parties in respect of the joint family properties. A third party claiming an independent right over the suit schedule property has no role to play in such
HC-KAR
proceedings and is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It is well settled that if any third party claims an independent right in respect of the property pursuant to the preliminary decree, it is open to such third party to agitate the same in the final decree proceedings.
6. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application seeking impleadment. No ground is made out for interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35