Writ petition filed under Article 227 to quash an order dismissing an application to implead a proposed defendant in a partition suit. The High Court held that the order did not call for interference and dismissed the petition.
Application to implead the proposed defendant dismissed; Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP 8951/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.P.No.8951/2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI K. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE KAKAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA RESIDING AT NO.88 MOTTAPPANAPALYA INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 038. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI NARAYANASWAMY K, ADV.)
AND:
BANGALORE - 560 038.
BANGALORE - 560 038.
WP 8951/2018
2
THE RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 7 RESIDING AT 75/1 MOTTAPPANAPALYA INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 038.
RESPONDENTS NO.8 & 9 ARE RESIDING AT NO.362, MOTAPPANA PALYA, 3RD CROSS CHIKKANANJAPPA ROAD NEAR OMSHAKTHI TEMPLE INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 038
WP 8951/2018
3
S/O KHADER SAB MULLAR WORKING AT NRI, AI-SHAHA REAL ESTATE, AL-QASMIYA BALDIYA STREET
P.O.BOX 4576, SHARJA UAE
(BY SRI V. VISHWANATH SHETTY, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-4 TO R-7; SRI R.R. DEVENDRA GOWDA, ADV., FOR R-8, R-3; R-9 IS SERVED; V/O DATED 10.02.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-10 TO R-12 IS D/W)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD29.1.2018 IN O.S.NO.8891/2012 PASSED BY THE 39TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU [CCH-40] ON IA NO.8 WHICH IS ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dated 29.01.2018 passed on IA no.8 in O.S.No.8891/2012 by the XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
WP 8951/2018
4
proposed defendant is a necessary party to the suit as interest is created in his favour by defendant no.1 under the gift deed. He submits that the proposed defendant cannot thereafter may take a defence that he was not a
WP 8951/2018
5
party to the suit, and he, therefore, prays to allow the writ petition.
and also perused the material available on record.
WP 8951/2018
6
defendant. The Trial Court while considering the
application for impleading, has observed that if the petitioner is able to demonstrate before the Trial Court that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties, then the alleged gift deed said to have been executed by defendant no.1 will not be binding on the share of the plaintiff, and therefore, it has accordingly held that the proposed defendant is not a necessary party to determine the issue that arise for consideration in the suit. I am of the considered view that the said order passed by
the Trial Court on IA no.8 does not call for any interference. Accordingly, I decline to entertain the petition. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
KK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proposed defendant is a necessary party to the suit for partition.
Whether the Trial Court's order declining the application to implead the proposed defendant requires interference under Article 227.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri K. Lokesh
Mohan Kumar
Sri K. Anjanappa Reddy
Smt. Ammayamma
Smt. A. Manjula
Sri Murali
S. VishwaJith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
