Karnataka High Court
WP/28231/2026 of SRI. CHIKKGOWDA Vs B. K. LOKESHA on 21 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010612892026 NC: 2026:KHC:51985 WP No. 28231 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 28231 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHIKKGOWDA S/O SURAPPA AGED ABOUT 50
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 28231 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. CHIKKGOWDA
S/O SURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O. BUGUDANAHALLI
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 107
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SOMASHEKARA K. M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
B. K. LOKESHA
S/O B.S. KEMPANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/O. BUGUDANAHALLI
BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 107
2.
SMT. ANNAPURANA
W/O LINGEGODA
D/O LATE B.S. KEMPANANJAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT NALLUR VILLAGE,
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 216
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
3.
GURUPRASAD
S/O SURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
4.
NARASEGOWDA
S/O SURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
5.
BORAMMA
W/O SURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
6.
SIDDAMMA
W/O LATE JAYADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
7.
MUNIRAJ
S/O LATE JAYADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
8.
ANANDA
S/O LATE JAYADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESPONDENTS No.3 TO 8 ARE
R/O BUGUDANAHALLI VILLAGE
BELLAVI HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK
AND DISTRICT-572 107
9.
MANJAMMA
W/O KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT YELIYUR VILLAGE
SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137
10.
SAROJAMMA
W/O BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
HC-KAR
R/AT C/O GORAKERE KEMPANNA
CHELUR VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK
NOW @ C/O SIDDAMMA
BUDADANAHALLI BELLAVI HOBLI
TAUMAKURU TALUK-572 107
11.
KUMARI @ KANYAKUMARI
W/O NANDISHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
VIJAYA UPAHARA SSIT MAIN ROAD
MARALUR, TUMAKURU TOWN
TUMAKURU-572 201
12.
GANGAMMA
W/O GADIYAPPA
D/O SURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O KODIYALA VILLAGE
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 216
13.
BHAGYAMMA
W/O NANJUNDASWAMY
D/O SURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT AADIHOSAHALLI
MUDDLINGANAHILI POST
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT-562 132
14.
MANGALA GOWRAMMA
W/O BYARAPPA
D/O SURAPPA,
DEAD BY LRS
BHYRAPPA S/O NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT SHANTHINAGARA
TUMAKURU TOWN
NOW R/AT OLD KAVERI SCHOOL
HC-KAR
ROAD, ALASETTYKERE PALYA
2ND MIAN, 2ND CROSS
JAGADEESH LAYOUT
SHANTHINGARA, TUMAKURU-572 104
15.
THANUJA
D/O BHYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT LAKSHMIPURA
CHIKKABANAVARA, BENGALURU
NOW. R/AT ADALAGERE
MUNI AGRAHARA
LAKSHMIPURA CROSS
HESARUGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH-560 088
16.
LATHA
W/O GURURAJ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
R/AT VADDANAALLI VILLAGE
ARUDI POST, CHIKKABALLAPUR
DISTRICT-561 208
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 04.07.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.8 IN FDP NO.24
OF 2019 BY THE 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TUMAKURU, AS PER ANNEXURE-E ETC.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
HC-KAR
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
Heard Sri. Somashekara K.M., learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present petition is filed impugning the order dated 04.07.2026, wherein respondent No.2(b) in FDP No.24/2019 has been permitted to be transposed as petitioner No.2.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the FDP, without granting sufficient opportunity to oppose the application in I.A. No.8, has permitted the transposition of respondent No.2(b) as petitioner No.2. It is submitted that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are acting in collusion, which would prejudice the rights of the other respondents.
4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers.
5. The affidavit accompanying the application states that respondent No.2(b) and petitioner No.1 are the children of Gowramma and B.S. Kempananjappa. It is further stated that
HC-KAR
both petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2(b) are claiming rights through their mother, late Gowramma. It is also stated that there is no conflict of interest between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2(b).
6. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though vehemently contended that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2(b) are acting in collusion to the prejudice of the rights of the other parties, the same has not been demonstrated. Petitioner No.1-B.K. Lokesh and respondent No.2(b) are brother and sister, claiming right and share in the suit schedule property through their mother-Smt.Gowramma and father-B.S.Kempananjappa. In such circumstances, this Court finds that no prejudice would be caused to the interest of the petitioner in transposing respondent No.2(b) as petitioner No.2 in FDP No.24/2019. The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35