A writ appeal challenged a Single Judge's order allowing impleadment of respondents 7 to 10 in a writ petition involving an adverse possession claim obtained against a dead person. The appellate court found no ground to interfere and dismissed the appeal.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:28062-DB WA No. 859 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 859 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SABITHA VENUGOPAL, W/O. MR B. K. VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O. HOUSE NO. 17/1, SRI SAMPANGI RAMASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRASANNA B R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:28062-DB WA No. 859 of 2021
D.C. COMPOUND, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
ALL ARE R/AT NO.20/1,
H.N.LAYOUT, SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION,
NC: 2024:KHC:28062-DB WA No. 859 of 2021
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DEVARAJ C H, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 6;
SRI A S MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 (7.1 TO 7.3) AND R-8 TO 10.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.30073/2017 DATED 19.02.2021 AND TO DISMISS THE I.A. NO.1/2020 (IMPLEADING APPLICATION) FILED BY THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 10.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, V KAMESWAR RAO J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.02.2021 in I.A.No.1/2020 filed in WP No.30073/2017.
counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has filed
detailed objections to the application filed by respondent Nos.7 to 10 for their impleadment, which objections have not been considered.
a first blush, noting the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 19.02.2021 in WP No.30073/2017, we are of the view that the impugned order should not be interfered with. Appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A.No.2/2022 for stay does not survive for consideration and hence, the same is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
NR/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
1 issue framed by the court
Should the proposed respondents 7 to 10 be impleaded in the pending writ petition concerning a claim based on adverse possession against a dead person?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Sabitha Venugopal
The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District
Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District
Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division
Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk
V Kameswar Rao
C M Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
