Sri Saranangayya S/O Channaveeragouda Sarangamath… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Saranangayya S/O Channaveeragouda Sarangamath… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; order dated 18/04/2024 on I.A.No.3 (Annexure-A) in O.S.No.38/2023 quashed; respondent No.1 not permitted to participate in the partition suit; liberty to file an independent suit; decree in O.S.No.38/2023 not to bind respondent No.1.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1, allowed by the impugned order to come on record as defendant No.11 in the partition suit O.S.No.38/2023, is a necessary party to that suit. +1 more

Court's answer

Defendant No.11 should not be permitted to participate in the suit for partition in O.S.No.38/2023.

Ratio / Principle

If defendant No.11 claims through the brother's branch of the propositus, her proper course is to seek partition including all the properties of her grandfather and all members of her grandfather's family, which her impleadment application did not do.

Key takeaways

The rights, if any, of respondent No.1/defendant No.11 over the properties shall not be curtailed by the decree in O.S.No.38/2023, and the decree to be passed in that suit does not bind her.ratio¶65
Respondent No.1/defendant No.11 is at liberty to file such suit as advised in law to establish her claim, if any, over the suit schedule property, and any such suit shall be decided uninfluenced by the dismissal of her application in O.S.No.38/2023.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — Impleadment of parties — Order I Rule 10 CPC — Partition suit — Respondent No.1, granddaughter of the brother of the propositus, impleaded as defendant No.11 in O.S.No.38/2023 by order dated 18/04/2024 on I.A.No.3; she had not sought inclusion of all properties and family members of her grandfather's branch — Held, she cannot be permitted to participate in the pending partition suit among the other branch; writ petition allowed and the impleadment order quashed; her rights, if any, are protected: the decree in O.S.No.38/2023 will not bind her, she may file an independent suit to establish her claim, and such suit is to be decided uninfluenced by the dismissal of her application; the Court expressed no opinion on the merits of her claim.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13908 WP No. 103459 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 103459 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SARANANGAYYA S/O CHANNAVEERAGOUDA SARANGAMATH, AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. EX-ARMY AND AGRI., R/O. GUDDADA DEVALAPUR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL, REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS G.P.A. HOLDER OF HIS SON BY NAME

SRI. SUNIL S/O SARANGAYYA SARANGAMATH, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE AND AGRI., R/O. GUDDADA DEVALAPUR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANILocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKADHARWAD BENCHDate: 2025.10.1807:57:06 +0100

SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O CHANNABASAYYA HIREMATH, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHALAGERI, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL, NOW AT: R/O. GUDDADA DEVALAPUR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

SRI. ASHOKSWAMI S/O CHANNAVEERAGOUDA SARANGAMATH, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDDADA DEVALAPUR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL, NOW AT: R/O. KOPPAL,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13908 WP No. 103459 of 2024

HC-KAR

NEAR WATER TANK, BHAGYANAGAR, ADAVI ANJANEYA TEMPLE, KOPPAL, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL.

SRI. CHANNABASAYYA S/O CHANNAVEERAGOUDA SARANGAMATH, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDDADA DEVALAPUR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

SRI. SANGAYYA S/O CHANNAVEERAGOUDA SARANGAMATH, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDDADA DEVALAPUR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL, NOW AT: R/O. KARATAGI RAMANAGAR, KARATAGI, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

SRI. OMPRAKASH S/O CHANNAVEERAGOUDA SARANGAMATH, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDDADA DEVALAPUR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL, NOW AT: R/O. GAJENDRAGADA, BEHIND BUS STAND, JAVALI PLOT,

TQ. GAJENDRAGADA, DIST. GADAG.

SR. KARABASANAGOUDA @ SHEKHANNA S/O BASANAGOUDA SARANGAMATH @ PATIL, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGARABHAVI, MALAGAL BUS STAND, (1 STOP), BENGALURU.

SRI BASAVARAJ @ BABU S/O CHANNABASANGANAGOUDA SARANGAMATH @ PATIL,

AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, BASAVESHWARA HOSPITAL, R/O. KALABURGI, TQ. KALABURGI, DIST. KALABURGI.

SRI. VAIJANATH S/O CHANNABASANGANAGOUDA SARANGAMATH @ PATIL,

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13908 WP No. 103459 of 2024

HC-KAR

AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED SERVICE (HEALTH DEPT.), R/O. KALABURGI, TQ. KALABURGI, DIST. KALABURGI.

SRI. KASHINATH S/O PATTADARYA SARANGAMATH, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDDADA DEVALAPUR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

SRI. SHARANAPPA S/O KALAKAPPA GUDADUR, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED SERVICE (AGRI.), TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

SRI MURTHUNJAYYA S/O CHANNABASAPPA SARANGAMTH, AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. GUDDADA DEVALAPUR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R11 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/04/2024 ON I.A. NO.III IN O.S. NO.38/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUSHTAGI VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO REJECT THE I.A. NO.3 FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT/3^RD PARTY BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13908 WP No. 103459 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff, assailing the order allowing I.A.No.3 filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908¹ , by respondent No.1 to come on record as defendant No.11 in O.S.No.38/2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kusthagi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1, who has now been allowed to come on record in terms of the impugned order, belongs to a different branch and is not a necessary party to the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs against defendants No.1 to 10.

It is further submitted that the parties are intending to settle the dispute, and respondent No.1/defendant No.11, who has no right in the property, is coming in the way of settlement. Thus, she would urge that the application ought not to have been allowed and should have been rejected, as

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13908 WP No. 103459 of 2024

HC-KAR

respondent No.1/defendant No.11 is not a member of the family of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 10.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.11, who is allowed to come on record, would submit that respondent No.1 is the granddaughter of brother of propositus of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 10. Thus, it is urged that defendant No.11 is also a necessary party to the suit.

Assuming that defendant No.11 is the granddaughter of the brother of propositus of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 10, then she should be include all the properties of her grandfather and all members of her grandfather’s family in the claim for partition as defendant No.11.

It appears that defendant No.11 has not yet made any claim in her application to include all the properties and all the family members of her grandfather.

This being the position, this Court is of the view that

defendant No.11 should not be permitted to participate in the suit for partition in O.S.No.38/2023. However, the rights of

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13908 WP No. 103459 of 2024

HC-KAR

respondent No.1/defendant No.11, if any, over the

property/ies should not be curtailed in view of the decree to be passed in the present suit in O.S.No.38/2023.

Hence the following:

ORDER

a) The writ petition is allowed.

b) The order on I.A.No.3 filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC in O.S.No.38/2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushtagi, is quashed.

c) Respondent No.1/Defendant No.11, the applicant in I.A.No.3, is at liberty to file such suit as advised in law to establish the claim, if any, over the suit schedule property.

d) The decree to be passed in O.S.No.38/2023 does not bind the respondent No.1.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13908 WP No. 103459 of 2024

HC-KAR

e) If any such suit is filed by respondent No.1, shall be decided without being influenced by the dismissal of

her application in O.S.No.38/2023.

f) This Court has not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the claim of respondent No.1.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 0