Dismissed¶55

Beerappa v. Jagadhish

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2025WP/20091/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of purchaser refused; necessary and proper party test under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC; proposed defendant a stranger to proceedings absent relief and pleadings; Article 227 certiorari writ petition dismissed; O.S.No.49/2024, Civil Judge and JMFC Harihar; dispute over creation of new survey numbers Sy.Nos.30/11 and 30/12 by reduction of Sy.Nos.30/9 and 30/10; Karnataka High Court single-judge oral order.

What did the court decide?

With no relief sought against proposed defendant No.5 and no pleading against him, the proposed defendant is a stranger to the proceedings and is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. ¶55

Beerappa Vs Jagadhish — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:52935 W.P. No.20091/2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.20091/2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BEERAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.

¶9

NAGAPPA

¶10

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶11

S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.

¶12

BOTH ARE R/OF KAMALAPUR VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SMT. SARVAMANGALA, ADV., FOR SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADV.,)

¶15

AND:

¶16

JAGADHISH

¶17

S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O. YELEHOLE VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶18

DEVIRAMMA

¶19

W/O LATE MATADA VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:52935 W.P. No.20091/2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O LATE MATADA VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.

¶24

RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 R/O: GANGANARISI VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577235.

¶25

SREEDEVI K S W/O B. REVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS HOUSEHOLD WORKER R/O MATRUSHRI NILAYA 4TH CROSS, UPPARAHALLI BADAVANE TUMAKURU CITY, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶26

VASANTHAKUMAR G.M. S/O LATE G. MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS BUSINESS R/O INDIRA NAGAR BADAVANE 1STMAIN, 3RD CROSS HARIHAR CITY, HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THERE BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 27/02/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. HARIHAR IN O.S. NO.49/2024 THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE I.A.NO.V FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ABOVE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:52935 W.P. No.20091/2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶36

"i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari there by quashing the order dated 27/02/2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Harihar in O.S.No.49/2024 the copy of the same is produced and marked as Annexure-A to the writ petition and consequently be pleased to allow the I.A.No.V filed by the Petitioners above in the interest of justice and equity.

¶37

ii) Issue such other relief and further relief as are deemed fit by this Hon'blee Court to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interests of justice and equity."

¶38

Smt.Sarvamangala, learned counsel for

¶39

Sri.Hiremathad maheshiah Rudrayya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a suit for relief of declaration and injunction. In the said suit, the defendants filed a written statement and after noticing the averments in the written statement, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application for impleading the purchaser of the properties as proposed defendant No.5 which came to be rejected. It is submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the properties in Sy.Nos.30/9

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52935 W.P. No.20091/2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

and 30/10 situated at Kamalapura Village, Harihar Taluk which was acquired by virtue of sale deed dated 19.02.1991 and thereafter, defendant Nos.2 and 3 in collusion with proposed defendant No.5 and revenue officials have got mutated and created new survey numbers i.e., Sy.Nos.30/11 and 30/12 by reducing the extent in Sy.Nos.30/9 and 30/10. Hence, the proposed defendant No.5, who has purchased the property, is a necessary and proper party to the suit and the said aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition.

¶43

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶44

counsel for the petitioners and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶45

The petitioners have filed O.S.No.49/2024 seeking relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and further relief of injunction against the defendants. The suit schedule properties consists of

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52935 W.P. No.20091/2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

agricultural lands bearing Sy.Nos.30/9 and 30/10 each

¶49

measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated in Kamalapura Village, Harihar Taluk. In the said suit, the petitioners have filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to implead proposed defendant No.5 on the premise that defendant Nos.2 and 3 in collusion with proposed defendant No.5 and

¶50

the revenue officials have created two new survey numbers i.e., Sy.Nos.30/11 and 30/12 each measuring 19 guntas by reducing the extent of Sy.Nos.30/9 and 30/10. These facts were came to the knowledge of the petitioners through the written statement filed by defendant No.4, necessitating the filing of an application to implead proposed defendant No.5, who is the purchaser of the properties in Sy.Nos.30/11 and 30/12. The trial Court, however, rejected the said application on the ground that

¶51

the properties claimed by the petitioners are distinct from the properties of proposed defendant No.5 which have been sold in favour of defendant No.1. The records

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:52935 W.P. No.20091/2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

indicate that the scope of the suit is pertaining to Sy.Nos.30/9 and 30/10 of Kamalapura Village, Harihar Taluk, whereas the sale deed dated 20.07.2023 of defendant No.5 is pertaining to Sy.Nos.30/11 and 30/12 which have been sold in favour of defendant No.1. It is further noticed that the petitioners have not sought any relief against proposed defendant No.5. In the absence of any relief against defendant No.5 and without any pleading against defendant No.5, the proposed defendant would be a stranger to the proceedings and is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The trial Court has rightly come to conclusion and rejected the application. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the trial Court calling for interference. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, rejected .

¶56

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶57

ABK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Beerappa v. Jagadhish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beerappa v. Jagadhish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Golden Gate Properties Limited Vs Mr Basavaraju

Sri Gurumurthy Vs Smt Munilakshmamma

M/S. Emudhra Limited Vs Shri. Vinni Singhal

Smt Indira Vs K Shrinivas Rao

Mr Sreejith Purushothaman Vs Sri B L Kodanda Ramaiah

Sri B Venkateshwara Bhat Vs Sri B Subrahmanya Bhat