Smt Puttamma Vs Smt Jayanthi

SMT. SUMITHRA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 214, YELAHANKA MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, JAKKUR, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶13

MS. JAYASHREE S., W/O LATE PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 29, HOTTEPPA LAYOUT, AMRUTHAHALLI, SAHAKARANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 092.

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:19905 WP No. 14359 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SRI. RAJANNA J.M., S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.156/1, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE KATESHWAR SWAMY TEMPLE, JAKKUR, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA S.UPASANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VENKATESH PRASAD R., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SMT.JAYANTHI W/O LATE J.M.CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 867, D BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 092.

¶22

M/S. MANA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: 20/7, 'SWAMY LEGATO', 3^RD FLOOR, KADUBEESANAHALLI, MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 103. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. D. KISHORE REDDY.

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19905 WP No. 14359 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

MRS. ROOPA M.C., D/O LATE J.M.CHANDRAPPA, W/O VISHNU KUMAR G., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2165, D BLOCK, CHANNAKESHAVA NILAYA, SAHAKARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 092.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI JAGRUTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT.G.K.BHAVANA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

¶29

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/02/2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-68) IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 744/2023 UNDER ANNX-A, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 05, FILED BY THE IMPLEADING APPLICANT / R3 AT ANNX-A RESPECTIVELY.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:19905 WP No. 14359 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The petitioners - plaintiffs are before this Court calling in question an order dated 28.02.2025 passed in O.S.No.744/2023 by which the concerned Court allows the application filed by the defendant in I.A.No.5 filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the CPC' for short) to implead defendant No.3.

¶37

Heard Shri Subramanya S. Upasana, learned

¶38

counsel for Shri Venkatesh Prasad R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri Jagruth, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. G.K. Bhavana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶39

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶40

One late J.M. Chandrappa is said to have entered into a joint development agreement with M/s. Sai Kalyan Builders and Developers on 06.01.2020. The said late J.M. Chandrappa dies intestate on 15.07.2020, leaving behind the mother and first respondent - wife as the legal heirs. The third respondent

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:19905 WP No. 14359 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

institutes a suit in O.S.No.441/2022 claiming to be having 1/3^rd share of the property of late J.M. Chandrappa on the score that she is a child born to J.M. Chandrappa. On 28.12.2022, the first respondent is said to have declared herself to be a sole legal heir excluding the plaintiffs. Therefore, comes the suit in O.S.No.744/2023 seeking partition, injunction and asserting her 50% share in the suit properties. The concerned Court grants interim injunction restraining respondents No.1 and 2 from creating any third party rights. Written statements were filed by the defendants. Along with the same, an application in I.A.No.5 under Order I Rule 10 of the Cr.P.C. comes to be filed by defendant No.3 to implead herself in the subject O.S. The concerned Court allows the application. The plaintiffs claiming to be aggrieved by the said order are before this Court in the subject petition.

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that defendant No.3, who claims to be the daughter of late J.M. Chandrappa has filed a suit to determine that she is entitled to a share in the property in O.S.No.441/2022. Her rights as a daughter is yet to be determined in the said suit.

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:19905 WP No. 14359 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Notwithstanding the same, she is wanting to come into the proceedings, which is instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants, the widow of late J.M. Chandrappa. He would submit that she is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. He would seek the application be dismissed and petition be allowed.

¶50

Per contra , Shri P.N. Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that defendant No.3 is the child born to late J.M. Chandrappa. Keeping her away from the share of the property in a suit for partition or injunction, rights of defendant No.3 would put to great jeopardy. In that light, the learned counsel submits that there is no warrant to interfere with the order.

¶51

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have pursued the available material on record.

¶52

The afore narrated facts of institution of the suits, dates, link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. The plaintiffs are the wife and children of one late J.M. Chandrappa.

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:19905 WP No. 14359 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Late J.M. Chandrappa dies intestate on 15.07.2020. Suit is instituted by defendant No.3 claiming to be the child of late J.M. Chandrappa and seeking 1/3^rd share in his properties. In the interregnum, the plaintiffs institutes suit in O.S.No.744/2023 for partition and injunction claiming 50% of the share in this suit property to each of them. The claim therefore over lapse. If defendant No.3 has a right to contend that she is entitled to 1/3^rd share in the property, she would become a necessary party to the suit instituted claiming half share of the property and therefore, the application comes about. The concerned Court by the following reasons has allowed the application. The reasons are as follows:

¶57

" REASONS

¶58

POINT No.1 : I have considered the application along with the objections and the arguments addressed by both the sides.

¶59

At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the suit is filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The proposed defendant has contended that she is the daughter of J.M. Chandrappa. But the plaintiff has specifically stated that the proposed defendant is not the daughter of J.M. Chandrappa. Further in the last page of the Joint Development Agreement dated: 28.12.2022 it is stated that "Sri. J.M. Chandrappa died on 15.07.2020 leaving behind his wife Smt. Jayanthi as Class-I sole heir to succeed

¶60

8 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:19905 WP No. 14359 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

his estate". As such the proposed defendant is not the legal heir of J.M.Chandrappa and she is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule property. Hence she is not a necessary party to this suit.

¶64

In view of the contention taken by both the sides, admittedly this suit is for partition of the suit schedule properties. The Joint Development Agreement dated 28.12.2022 has been executed by the defendant No.1, to which the plaintiffs were not the parties. At this stage it can be safely said that only after the evidence the court can come to the conclusion as to whether the proposed defendant No.3 is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties along with the plaintiff and others. Hence for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties, it is just and necessary to implead the proposed defendant as defendant No.3. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.

¶65

POINT No.2 : In view of the findings on the Point No.1 as above, I proceed to pass following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

I.A.No.5 filed by the proposed defendant No.3 under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., is hereby allowed.

¶68

The proposed defendant is to be impleaded as defendant No.3.".

¶69

Though the reasons so rendered is far from being satisfactory, the facts narrated in the application filed under Order I, Rule 10, the unmistakable inference would be that

¶70