Karnataka High Court
WP/21837/2026 of SRI.SHREEKAANTH DAAS Vs SMT.KEMPAMMA on 22 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010483212026 NC: 2026:KHC:52781 WP No. 21837 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 21837 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.SHREEKAANTH DAAS S/O LATE, SRI,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 21837 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI.SHREEKAANTH DAAS
S/O LATE, SRI, ASHWATHNARAYAN RAO,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF -
M/S SAHA DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS,
OFFICE AT NO.1112, 1ST FLOOR,
G AND H BLOCK,
GAGANACHUMBI DOUBLE ROAD,
KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570023.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI LINGARAJU K.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT.KEMPAMMA
D/O LATE, BELIGIGOWDA @ KULLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
2.
SRI, SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
3.
SMT, RAJAMMA,
D/O LATE, BELIGIGOWDA @ KULLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
4.
SMT, MAHADEVI,
D/O LATE, BELIGIGOWDA @ KULLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42YEARS
5.
RANI,
D/O LATE, BELIGIGOWDA @ KULLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
6.
RAJANNA,
S/O LATE, BELIGIGOWDA @ KULLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
7.
RAVI,
S/O LATE, BELIGIGOWDA @ KULLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 7 ARE
R/O SAJJEHUNDI GRAMA,
JALAPURA POST, VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571311.
8.
SMT, KEMPAMMA,
W/O CHIKKEGOWDA,
D/O LATE, KALASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/O, LAKSHMIKANTHA NAGARA,
HEBBAL MYSURU -570016
9.
SMT, NANJAMMA,
D/O LATE, KALASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/O, DUDDUGERE, VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU -570010
10.
SRI, SOMASHERAR,
S/O LATE, CHIKKEGOWDA AND
LATE, KULLAMMA @ KEMPAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O, KIRISAVE, CHANNARAYAPATTNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT -573124
HC-KAR
11.
SMT, LAKSHMI
D/O LATE, CHIKKEGOWDA AND
LATE, KULLAMMA @ KEMPAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O, BIDIRAKERE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT -571802
12.
SMT, JAYALAKSHMI. C,
D/O LATE, THAYAMMA @
CHIKKATHAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O, NO. 470, EWS(YGHS)
HEBBAL 1ST STAGE,
LAKSHMIKANTHA NAGARA,
MYSURU -570016
13.
SRI, KUMARASWAMY. S
S/O LATE, SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
14.
SMT, SAVITHRAMMA,
S/O LATE, SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESPONDENTS No.13 TO 14 ARE
R/O NO 350, EWS(YGHS),
HEBBAL 1ST STAGE,
LAKSHMIKANTHA NAGARA,
MYSURU -570016
15.
SRI, SHIVARAJU,
S/O LATE, CHIKKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O, NO 325, EWS(YGHS)
HEBBAL 1ST STAGE,
LAKSHMIKANTHA NAGARA,
MYSURU -570016
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7; SRI K. VENKATESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R10;
HC-KAR
SRI VENKATESH KUMAR S., AND SMT. ROJA D., ADVOCATE
FOR R12, R13 AND R14;
VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2026
NOTICE TO R8, R9 AND R11 IS HELD SUFFICIENT.
VIDE ORDER DATED 22.09.2026
NOTICE TO R15 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND
CJM.,
AT
MYSURU,
IN
FDP
No.103/2018
DATED
17.06.2026 ON IA No.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2)
VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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
1. This petition is filed impugning the order dated 17.06.2026 passed in F.D.P. No.103/2018, whereby I.A. No.4 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, seeking impleadment of the petitioner, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased Item No.2 of the schedule property from respondent Nos.1 to 7 and that, under the decree passed in O.S. No.1079/2012, shares have been allotted to the vendors of the petitioner. It is submitted that, even if the sale
HC-KAR
deed was registered during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner would be entitled to claim rights to the extent of the share allotted to the vendors. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to F.D.P. No.103/2018.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application.
4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
5. It is evident from the impugned order that the petitioner purchased Item No.2 of the schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 23.01.2019, whereas the suit in O.S. No.1079/2012 was instituted in the year 2012 and the decree was passed on 16.08.2018. It is a settled position of law that a subsequent purchaser, being a third party, may not be a necessary party to a suit for partition. However, any rights acquired by virtue of a transfer in favour of a third party during the pendency of the partition suit can be worked out in the final
HC-KAR
decree proceedings against the share allotted to the vendor therein.
6. The Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. The petitioner is a proper and necessary party to F.D.P. No.103/2018. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii)
Order
dated 17.06.2026 passed in
F.D.P.No.103/2018 is set aside.
iii) Consequently, I.A.No.4 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC for impleadment of the petitioner is allowed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 139