Karnataka High Court
WP/14238/2022 of SRI M D RAJU Vs SRI GURUPRASAD on 31 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010316392022 NC: 2026:KHC:47093 WP No. 14238 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A . PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14238 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M.D.RAJU, S/O LATE R.DODDAIAH, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 14238 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. M.D.RAJU,
S/O LATE R.DODDAIAH,
AGED 52 YEARS,
OCC: ENGINEER,
R/AT 'SHANTHIKRUPA',
15th CROSS, NANDESSH LAYOUT,
S.I.T EXTENSION,
TUMAKURU - 572 101.
2.
SRI. M.D. MAHESH,
S/O R. DODDAIAH,
AGED 45 YEARS,
OCC. ASST. MANAGER,
R/AT MUDDENAHALLI, KORA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 572 128.
3.
SRI. GANGADHARAIAH,
S/O SIDDALINGAPPA,
AGED 58 YEARS,
R/AT SUGGANAPALYA VILLAGE,
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT – 572 117.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRACHOODA., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
ANNAPURNA G
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
SRI. GURUPRASAD,
S/O LATE G.NANJAPPA,
AGED 69 YEARS,
2.
DR. BASAVARAJU,
S/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED 66 YEARS,
3.
DR. RATHAN,
S/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED 64 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT NO.20, 2nd MAIN,
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
4.
SREE SREE SREE SIDDALINGAMAHASWAMYJI,
SIDDAGANGA MATADHYKSHARU,
SIDDAGANGE,
TUMKURU CITY - 572 101.
5.
SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH,
S/O GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
6.
SRI. MAHESH,
S/O GANGAIAH,
AGED 37 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 ARE
AJJAGONDANAHALLY, BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 107.
HC-KAR
7.
SRI. M.D. VAJRAPPA,
S/O LATE DODDANANJAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
7(a)
LAKSHMIDEVAMMA,
W/O LATE M.D.VAJRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
7(b)
V.SHIVARAMAIAH,
S/O LATE M.D.VAJRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
7(c)
JAYAPRAKASH V.,
S/O LATE M.D.VAJRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 7(a) TO 7(c) ARE
RESIDING AT MELEHALLI VILLAGE,
KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI.NANDEESH C.B., ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; SRI.YOGESH V KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.P.H.VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R7(a to c))
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 10.3.2022 PASSED ON IA FILED BY THE R-7 U/O 1
RULE 10 OF CPC TO COME ON RECORD AS PLAINTIFF NO.3 IN
O.S.NO.407/2018 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM TUMAKURU VIDE ANNEXURE – J AND ETC.,
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
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
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 10.03.2022 passed in O.S.No.407/2018 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for short).
2. Heard Sri M.B. Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Mahesh R. Uppin, learned counsel for respondent No.4; Sri Nandeesh C. B., learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6; Sri Yogesh V Kotemath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.H. Virupakshaiah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7(A) to 7(C).
3. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.407/2018 seeking the relief of declaration of ownership, delivery of
HC-KAR
possession and mesne profits. In the said suit, respondent No.7 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') seeking to implead himself as plaintiff No.3. The trial Court, vide order dated 10.03.2022, allowed the said application. It is to be noticed that the trial Court, under the impugned order, has committed a grave error in recording a finding that the suit is for partition.
4. Be that as it may, it is to be noticed that the relief sought by the plaintiffs is a declaration that Smt. Doddamma, daughter of Sri Dyavaiah, had no right to alienate the properties in favour of the defendants, and on that basis, the suit for declaration has been filed. The proposed-plaintiff No.3/applicant-respondent No.7 claims to be the son of Sri Doddananjaiah.
5. It is to be noticed that the suit is for declaration of ownership on the assertion made in the plaint that Smt. Doddamma had no right to alienate the properties in favour of the defendants, and the said assertion is
HC-KAR
required to be proved by the plaintiffs in the suit. The children of Sri Doddananjaiah have no role in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the legal heirs of Smt. Siddagangamma and Smt. Shanthamma. If respondent No.7 had any independent right over the suit schedule properties, it is open for respondent No.7 to agitate the same in accordance with law. The trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the impleadment. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 10.03.2022 passed in O.S.No.407/2018 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, the application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC filed by respondent No.7 is rejected.
HC-KAR
iv) The trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27