Rangaswamy C K Vs Sri Nanjundaiah

SMT. KEMPAHONNAMMA, D/O LATE SRI. DODDAHONNAIAH, W/O SRI. MAYANNA N, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO. 36, NAGASANDRA, K.G. TEMPLE POST, GUBBI RURAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216.

¶23

SMT. HONNAMMA, D/O LATE SRI. DODDAHONNAIAH, W/O SRI. B.K. KEMPALAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O BEGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 130.

¶24

SRI. RAVIKUMAR M.N. S/O SRI. MAYANNA N, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 23, LAKSHMI NILAYA, K. CHENNAPPA ROAD, NEAR R.K. HOSPITAL, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, ST. THOMAS TOWN, BENGALURU-560084.

¶25

SRI. RAMCACHANRAPPA N. M, S/O SRI. MAYANNA N, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44601 WP No. 28387 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

R/AT NO. 36, NAGASANDRA, K.G. TEMPLE POST, GUBBI RURAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216.

¶29

SRI. GOVINDARAJU B.K. S/O B.K. KEMPALAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O BEGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 130.

¶30

SRI. YATHISHA B.K. S/O SRI. B.K. KEMPALAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O BEGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI PUNITH C, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 AND R2, NOTICE TO R-3 TO 10 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 05.11.2025)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION i.e., ORDER DATED 01-09-2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO. VI FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S. NO. 82/2025 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:44601 WP No. 28387 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶41

counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶42

The parties to the proceedings shall be referred

¶43

to as per the ranking before the trial Court.

¶44

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking relief of

¶45

partition and separate possession and to declare the compromise deed dated 07.06.2024 to be null and void as the same is executed by way of fraud and not binding on the plaintiffs to declare the sale deed dated 12.11.2024 executed in favour of defendant Nos.9 and 10 to be bad in law and to pass an order of permanent injunction against defendant Nos.9 and 10. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.9 and 10 before the trial Court. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.9 and 10 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of

¶46

CPC to strike out the names of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 in the original suit in O.S.No.82/2025.

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44601 WP No. 28387 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

After contest and hearing the arguments of the parties to the proceedings, the said application came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.9 and 10 are before this Court in this petition.

¶50

It is a vehement contention of learned counsel for defendant Nos.9 and 10 that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and the same requires to be set aside as it is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further contends that when a suit is filed by the plaintiff, he has to make the parties to the proceedings against whom relief is sought and not against those persons, against whom no relief is sought and no claim is made. Admittedly, the present suit is filed for the relief of partition, separate possession and declaration and other consequential reliefs. It is contented that plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 are neither proper nor necessary parties to the suit proceedings. As plaintiff No.2 is the wife of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1 and they have no independent right over suit schedule property and

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:44601 WP No. 28387 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

they were unnecessarily made parties to these

¶55

proceedings.

¶56

It is also contented by the learned counsel that merely because their names are entered in the RTC along with their respective husbands, they are made parties to the proceedings. Therefore, they are not proper and necessary parties to the suit proceedings and they are required to be deleted from the array of parties to the suit. Hence, he filed an application seeking to strike out their names and delete their names from the array of parties, which came to be rejected and hence, the same is illegal and arbitrary and requires to be set aside. Hence, he seeks to set aside the order and consequently, allow his application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC which is filed to delete plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 from the array of parties in the original suit in O.S.No.82/2025.

¶57

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, who is on caveat before the Court, contends that there is

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:44601 WP No. 28387 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court on the application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC. He further contends that the plaintiff is the dominus litis. He has the right and liberty to array the parties to the suit

¶62

proceedings on the basis of the pleadings and the reliefs sought for in the plaint. He further contends that there is no dispute to the fact that plaintiff No.2 is the wife of plaintiff No.1, so also, defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1 and also the fact that their names are entered in the RTC along with their respective husbands. Therefore, they would be proper and necessary parties to these suit proceedings.

¶63

It is also contended that upon the defendant

¶64

appearance before the Court, they filed counter claim. Defendant Nos.9 and 10 appeared and filed their written statement and also a counter claim against the plaintiffs in which defendant Nos.9 and 10 have sought for reliefs against the plaintiffs as well as defendant Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, even on such circumstances, plaintiff No.2 and

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44601 WP No. 28387 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

defendant No.2 would be proper and necessary parties. Therefore, he sustains the impugned order and contends that there is no illegality and the same to be affirmed and the petition deserves to be rejected.

¶68

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners /defendants Nos. 9 and 10 and respondents/plaintiffs, it is a fundamental rule of law that a plaintiff is the dominus litis and no doubt it is true that a party to the proceedings is required to be made only when there is any relief or claim made against such party in the suit proceedings. Admittedly, the parties who are sought to be deleted are not before the Court aggrieved by them being made parties in the suit proceedings. It is defendant Nos. 9 and 10 who have filed an application seeking deletion of their names from the suit proceedings. Therefore, the aggrieved party if at all so claimed by the defendant Nos. 9 and 10 are not before this Court seeking for their deletion, so also, since their names are found in the RTCs, they may be proper parties to the suit proceedings. Therefore, the

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:44601 WP No. 28387 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

trial Court having considered these aspects has negatived

¶73

the contention of defendant Nos. 9 and 10 and rejected the application.

¶74

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality

¶75

or perversity in the order warranting interference at the hands of this Court on the said orders passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

The petition is dismissed .

¶78

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶79

DS

¶80

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Rangaswamy C K v. Sri Nanjundaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangaswamy C K v. Sri Nanjundaiah

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

Sri.Krishnareddy Vs Smt.Baby@ Roopavathi

M Kaleem Ahmed Vs Mariyanna

Smt. Sharadamma Vs Sri. Janardhana B K

M/S Jacay Hospitalities LLP Vs M/S Indra Prastha Shelters Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Chandramma Vs K M Mahadevegowda

Sri M Channa Krishnamurthy Vs Smt M Anusuya Devi