Dismissed¶55

Sri. Radha Krishna v. Smt. Muddamma

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2025WP/16846/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of junior member of Hindu Undivided Family in partition suit; Order I Rule 10 CPC necessary/proper party; Article 227 writ jurisdiction Karnataka High Court; Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC bar on challenging compromise decree; son of branch head entitled to be heard; Vishnu Sahu v. Gobind Sahu AIR 2005 Jharkhand 9 relied on; O.S.No.79/2019 Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Shidlaghatta Chikkaballapura; writ petition dismissed 08.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Though it is trite that only the heads of the branches are required to be impleaded in a suit for partition, junior members of a Hindu Undivided Family can be impleaded as parties where it is brought to the notice of the court that their presence would be necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute and to safeguard the interest of their branch represented by the head of the branch.

Sri. Radha Krishna Vs Smt. Muddamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing IA No.3 under Order I Rule 10 CPC impleading respondent no.10 (son of defendant no.9) as defendant no.10 in the partition suit O.S.No.79/2019, notwithstanding that the head of his branch was already arrayed as defendant no.9.

¶43

Court's answer

¶47

Ratio / Principle

Where the son of the head of a branch claims that documents were created taking advantage of his father's illiteracy and goodness, the son is required to be heard; the analogy is that otherwise it may not be open for him to subsequently challenge a compromise decree in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC.

¶49

Key takeaways

The Trial Court was fully justified in allowing the impleading application filed by respondent no.10, and the writ petition lacks merit.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.) — Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by the plaintiff in O.S.No.79/2019 (partition and separate possession, Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Shidlaghatta) challenging the order dated 12.11.2021 on IA No.3, whereby respondent no.10, son of defendant no.9 Ramachandrappa, was impleaded as defendant no.10 under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Held: although ordinarily only the heads of the branches need be joined in a suit for partition, junior members of a Hindu Undivided Family may be impleaded where their presence is necessary for proper adjudication and to safeguard the interest of their branch; where the son alleges documents were created exploiting his father's illiteracy and goodness, he must be heard, since Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC may preclude him from subsequently challenging a compromise decree. Reliance placed on Vishnu Sahu v. Gobind Sahu, AIR 2005 Jharkhand 9 (High Court of Jharkhand). Writ petition dismissed. Decision dated 08.10.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39669 WP No. 16846 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 16846 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI RADHA KRISHNA S/O LATE V. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT KEB ROAD, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN, SIDLAGHATTA TLUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN CODE.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI GADILINGAPPA G.M, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. MUDDAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS KEB ROAD, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN.

¶16

SMT. GAYATRI D/O MUDDAMA W/O SURESH N.L AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS NAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE KUDIYANOOR POST MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶17

SMT. SHARADHAMMA W/O S.V. DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SUBBARYANAPETE VILLAGE SANTHEKALLAHALLY POST KAIWARA HOBLI CHINTHAMANI TALUK.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:39669 WP No. 16846 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI DEVARAJ S/O LATE RAMANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS TEACHER, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, GULUR VILLAGE BAGEPALLY TALUK.

¶22

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶23

SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

¶24

SRI KIRAN S/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶25

DEFENDANTS 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT KEB ROAD SIDLAGHATTA TOWN.

¶26

SMT. ANITHA D/O MANJUNATHA W/O SRI SATHIS BABU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS KADRIPURA, II CROSS NEAR RAJA BUILDING KOLAR TOWN & DISTRICT.

¶27

SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA S S/O LATE V. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS KEB ROAD, SIDLGHATTA TOWN.

¶28

SRI SHARATH KUMAR S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, KEB ROAD, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN CODE.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39669 WP No. 16846 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.79/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SIDLAGHATTA AT CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, ADN SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.79/2019 BY THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SIDLAGHATTA, AT CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to quash the order dated 12.11.2021 passed on IA No.3 in O.S.No.79/2019 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Shidlaghatta, Chikkaballapura District.

¶37

Petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.79/2019 before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, respondent no.10 herein had filed IA No.3 under Order I Rule 10 CPC with a prayer to implead him as defendant no.10 to the suit, for the purpose of placing the truth before the court. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The learned Trial Judge vide the order impugned,

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:39669 WP No. 16846 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

allowed the said application and permitted the impleading applicant to come on record as defendant no.10 in O.S.No.79/2019. Assailing the said order, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶42

The impleading applicant has claimed that he is the son of defendant no.9 - Ramachandrappa and taking advantage of the illiteracy and goodness of his father, the plaintiff and other defendants have created documents showing as if defendant no.9 had released his share in the suit schedule properties and it is under these circumstances, the impleading applicant had approached the Trial Court with a prayer to implead him as defendant no.10 to the suit.

¶43

The objection raised by the plaintiff is that since the head of the family has been already arrayed as defendant no.9 in the suit, the impleading applicant is not a necessary party, and accordingly the plaintiff had prayed to dismiss the application.

¶44

Though it is trite that only the head of the branches are required to be impleaded in a suit for partition, the junior members of the Hindu Undivided family can be impleaded as

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39669 WP No. 16846 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

party to the suit, in the event it is brought to the notice of the court that his presence would be necessary for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit, more so to safeguard the interest of his branch which is represented by the head of the branch.

¶48

In almost identical circumstances, the High Court of Jharkhand in the case of VISHNU SAHU VS GOBIND SAHU & OTHERS - AIR 2005 JHARKHAND 9 , has observed that though it is not necessary to implead the junior members of the Hindu Undivided family, in a suit for partition, however, the son of the head of one of the branches objecting to the compromise on the ground that his father was not in a position to understand the consequences of his act, the son is required to be heard by the court, and therefore, had allowed the application filed by the son to implead him as a party in a suit for partition in which his father was arrayed as one of the defendants.

¶49

The analogy behind the aforesaid principle is that it may not be open for the son to subsequently challenge the compromise decree in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:39669 WP No. 16846 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Court was fully justified in allowing the impleading application

¶54

filed by respondent no.10 herein, and therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is

¶55

dismissed.

¶56