Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri.Sadashivappa.S Vs Smt.G.P. Parvathamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Sri.Sadashivappa.S Vs Smt.G.P. ParvathammaSri.Sadashivappa.S v. Smt.G.P. Parvathamma

Dismissed¶37

Sri.Sadashivappa.S v. Smt.G.P. Parvathamma

Article 227, Constitution of India – Impleadment of proposed defendant

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2025WP/24801/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Writ Petition No.24801 of 2024 (GM-CPC); Justice E.S. Indiresh; decided 17 January 2025; impleadment of party; Order I Rule 10(2) CPC with Section 151 CPC; Article 227; partition and separate possession suit O.S.No.274 of 2020 before Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere; proposed defendant No.4; son of defendant No.1; Survey No.89/2, Gosikere Village, Challakere Taluk; exclusive title cannot be claimed before crystallization of shares in partition suit; impleadment application rejected with Rs.200/- cost; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Unless the rights of the parties are crystallized in the partition suit with regard to the share of defendant No.1 in the suit schedule properties, the petitioner cannot claim exclusive right over Survey No.89/2 of Gosikere Village without ascertaining the lawful title; accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims to be the son of defendant No.1 and asserts that Survey No.89/2 has come to his share, could claim an exclusive right over that land (and be impleaded as defendant No.4) before the shares of the parties are crystallized in the partition suit.

Court's answer

Unless the rights of the parties are crystallized in the partition suit with regard to the share of defendant No.1 in the suit schedule properties, the petitioner cannot claim exclusive right over Survey No.89/2 of Gosikere Village without ascertaining the lawful title; accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227, Constitution of India - Impleadment of proposed defendant - Application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC rejected by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Challakere in O.S.No.274 of 2020 (partition and separate possession) with cost of Rs.200/- - Petitioner claims to be the son of defendant No.1 and asserts exclusive right over Survey No.89/2, Gosikere Village, on the footing that the land has come to his share - Held: until the rights of the parties, including the share of defendant No.1 in the suit schedule properties, are crystallized in the partition suit, the applicant cannot claim exclusive right over the scheduled land without ascertainment of lawful title - No merit in the writ petition; dismissed.

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1843 WP NO.24801 OF 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.24801 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SADASHIVAPPA S. S/O SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT GOSIKERE VILLAGE, PARASHURAMAPURA HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 538.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR H., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

Location: High Court of Karnataka

SMT. G.P. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE PANDURANGAPPA W/O D. CHIDANANDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC.:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/AT TEACHERS COLONY, 2^ND CROSS, CHITRADURGA CITY, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

SMT. G.P. GAVIYAMMA D/O LATE PANDURANGAPPA W/O EKANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT SAKKARA VILLAGE, DHARMAPURA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK - 577 546.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1843 WP NO.24801 OF 2024

SMT. G.P. EKANTHAMMA D/O LATE PANDURANAGAPPA W/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/AT GOSIKERE VILLAGE, PARASURAMPURA HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 538.

SMT. G.P. MUDDURANGAMMA D/O LATE PANDURANGAPPA, W/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/AT DODDABEERANAHALLI VILLAGE, PARASURAMAPURA HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 538.

SMT. G.P. LAKSMIDEVI D/O LATE PANDURANGAPPA W/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT SAMUDRAHALLY, DHARMPURA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK - 577 546.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05^TH AUGUST, 2024 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHALLAKERE IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.274 OF 2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT NO.4/PETITIONER UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1843 WP NO.24801 OF 2024

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 274 OF 2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E; AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 05^th August, 2024 (Annexure-A) passed in Original Suit No.274 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Challakere (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the application IA.No.5 filed by the petitioner herein under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected.

It is the case of the petitioner that the plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No.274 of 2020, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properies. In the said suit, the petitioner herein had filed application IA. No.5 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to implead him as defendant No.4 in the suit for effective adjudication of the suit on the ground that, one of the properties mentioned in the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1843 WP NO.24801 OF 2024

schedule land bearing Survey No.89/2 measuring 2 acres situate at Gosikere Village, Parasurampura Hobli, Challakere Taluk has been given to the petitioner. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by order dated 05^th August, 2024, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner with cost of Rs.200/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner presented this writ petition.

Heard Sri. Kiran Kumar H., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Sri. Kiran Kumar H., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the son of defendant No.1 and the land bearing Survey No.89/2 has come to the share of the petitioner herein and therefore, he argued that the finding recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned order requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on careful examination of the impugned order dated 05^th August, 2024 passed in Original Suit No.274 of 2020 by the Trial Court, the same would indicate that the plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No.274 of 2020, seeking relief of

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1843 WP NO.24801 OF 2024

partition and separate possession in respect of the schedule properties. The petitioner claims to be the son of the defendant No.1. Therefore, unless the rights of parties is crystallized in the said suit with regard to the share of the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule properties, the petitioner herein cannot claim exclusive right in respect of the land bearing Survey No.89/2 of Gosikere Village, Parasuramapura Hobli, Challakere Taluk without ascertaining the lawful title in respect of the schedule property. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

ARK

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner, who claims to be the son of defendant No.1 and asserts that Survey No.89/2 has come to his share, could claim an exclusive right over that land (and be impleaded as defendant No.4) before the shares of the parties are crystallized in the partition suit.medium confidence¶34
The court held
Unless the rights of the parties are crystallized in the partition suit with regard to the share of defendant No.1 in the suit schedule properties, the petitioner cannot claim exclusive right over Survey No.89/2 of Gosikere Village without ascertaining the lawful title; accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.ratio¶37

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227¶22
Code of Civil ProcedureOrder I Rule 10(2)¶29 Section 151¶29

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 05.08.2024 in Original Suit No.274 of 2020 rejecting IA.No.5 filed by the proposed defendant No.4/petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment, with cost of Rs.200/- (Annexure-A).¶29
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Challakere (Trial Court) · 05 August 2024
Prior proceeding
Plaintiffs instituted Original Suit No.274 of 2020 seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.¶30
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed IA.No.5 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment as defendant No.4, contending that Schedule land Survey No.89/2 measuring 2 acres at Gosikere Village had been given to him.¶30

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SRI. SADASHIVAPPA S.¶8
Kiran Kumar H.
respondent
SMT. G.P. PARVATHAMMA¶14
respondent
SMT. G.P. GAVIYAMMA¶15
respondent
SMT. G.P. EKANTHAMMA¶18
respondent
SMT. G.P. MUDDURANGAMMA¶19
respondent
SMT. G.P. LAKSMIDEVI¶20

Coram

AI extract

E.S. INDIRESHauthor¶27

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 17 Jan 2025 · January
Registered: 5 Sept 2024
Case no.: WP/24801/2024
CNR: KAHC010516492024
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: E.s.indiresh
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: WRIT PETITION (GM-CPC)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from E.s.indiresh

Shri Sharanayya S/O Shekayya Hiremath Vs Smt Vanita Aliyas Kavya W/O Sharanayya Hiremath
16 Jan 2025
Smt. Boya Asha W/O Honnur Rudraiah Vs Sri Honnuru Rudraiah S/O Honnuru Yerriswamy
16 Jan 2025
Shanta W/O Jagdish Hulakoti Vs Jagadish S/O Basavanayya Hulakoti
16 Jan 2025
Mr. Praveen M R Vs Mr. N Niranjan
17 Jan 2025
Durgappa S/O Mariyappa Kattimani Vs Smt Shridevi W/O Vishwanath Malawad
21 Jan 2025
G. Gangadhara S/O. Late Gourappa Vs Smt. M. Manjuladevi W/O. G. Gangadhara
21 Jan 2025

Cite this judgement

Sri.Sadashivappa.S v. Smt.G.P. Parvathamma, WP/24801/2024 (KA), decided on 17 January 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227
Code of Civil ProcedureOrder I Rule 10(2) · Section 151

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 05.08.2024 in Original Suit No.274 of 2020 rejecting IA.No.5 filed by the proposed defendant No.4/petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment, with cost of Rs.200/- (Annexure-A).Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Challakere (Trial Court) · 05 August 2024
Plaintiffs instituted Original Suit No.274 of 2020 seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.
Petitioner filed IA.No.5 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment as defendant No.4, contending that Schedule land Survey No.89/2 measuring 2 acres at Gosikere Village had been given to him.

View full history

Bench / Coram

E.S. INDIRESH

Parties & counsel