The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the Trial Court's rejection of an application to implead parties 17 years after filing, holding the delay indicated the application was not bona fide.
The writ petition was dismissed as it lacked merit.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 988 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGAMMA (SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.,)
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENT OF YELACHENAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 078.
SMT. GUNDAMMA
(NOTE SHE DIED AND THERE ARE NO LEGAL HEIRS)
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUNIL S NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 8 ARE R/AT JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 078.
NC: 2024:KHC:42436 WP No. 988 of 2024
SMT. JAYAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
BOTH L.RS. ARE R/AT NO. 33, 10TH CROSS, JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 078.
SRI. K. V. SHAMANNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
22(C). SMT. BHARATHI W/O. LATE K. V. SHAMANNA, HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
22(D). SMT. MAMATHA W/O. LATE K. V. SHAMANNA, HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
22(E). SMT. DANUJA W/O. LATE K. V. SHAMANNA, HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
THE RESPONDENTS NO.22(A) TO 22(E) ARE RESIDING AT JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 078.
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 078.
RAJIV GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 078.
J. P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUSHA NANDISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GAURAV G.K., ADVOCATE FOR R28 TO R35; V/O DATED:01.07.2024, NOTICE TO R1 TO R27 AND R36 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2023 PASSED IN O.S. NO.
NC: 2024:KHC:42436 WP No. 988 of 2024
9808/2006, ON THE FILE OF CCH-39, AT ANNEXURE-D AND IN TURN ALLOW THE APPLICATION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.9808/2006 on the file of the 24th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, have filed this writ petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 15.12.2023 by which an application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, was rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:42436 WP No. 988 of 2024
had given away the suit property to the share of Sri.Venkatappa Reddy, Smt.Gundamma and Smt.Rajamma. Yerrappa died on 09.08.1986 after which, the revenue records stood transferred to the names of Sri.Venkatappa Reddy, Smt.Gundamma and Smt.Rajamma. Plaintiffs claimed that Sri.Venkatappa Reddy died on 07.11.1991 and that the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 inherited the share of Sri.Venkatappa Reddy. They contended that the defendants were strangers to the suit property and that all of them had trespassed into it and had constructed a building therein unauthorisedly. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought for relief of declaration of their title and for recovery of possession after demolition of the construction put up by the plaintiffs.
NC: 2024:KHC:42436 WP No. 988 of 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:42436 WP No. 988 of 2024
the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the Court Commissioner had submitted his report in the year 2007 itself, which showed that residential sites were formed and various persons were in occupation of portions of the suit property. It held that the defendants have filed the instant application after nearly 17 years from the date of suit. Thus, it held that the impleading applicants were not proper and necessary parties and rejected the application in terms of the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs are before this Court in this writ petition.
that Yerrappa did not convey the suit property, then they are bound to succeed.
NC: 2024:KHC:42436 WP No. 988 of 2024
ground in any appeal that may be filed against the Judgment
and Decree that may be passed in the suit.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
BNV
ct-snn/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead necessary parties filed 17 years after the suit was necessary and bona fide.
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application to implead parties claiming title through the same deceased ancestor as the plaintiffs.
Whether the writ petition challenging the Trial Court's order deserves to be allowed or dismissed.
SMT. NAGAMMA (SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.)
SMT. V. MANJULA
SRI. NAGARAJU
SRI. RAVI
SRI. PRAKASH
SMT. RAJAMMA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
