Sri H K Shivanna Vs Smt. Puttananjamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri H K Shivanna Vs Smt. Puttananjamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court committed any illegality or perversity in allowing the application permitting respondent No.1/defendant No.14 to be transposed as plaintiff No.2 in O.S. No.21/2015

Court's answer

The Court confined itself to the transposition question and did not delve into the merits of the partition suit, as what was sought was only transposition of defendant No.14 as plaintiff No.2

Ratio / Principle

The averments in para 4 of defendant No.14's affidavit clearly establish a conflict of interest between the defendants, whose statements of objection were diametrically opposite; transposition as plaintiff No.2 would make it easier for her to cross-examine the co-defendant witnesses and effectively adjudicate her case and rights similar to the plaintiff's, so the trial Court's order allowing transposition did not call for interference

Key takeaways

In a suit for partition, plaintiffs and defendants stand on equal footing; when a contradiction emerges in the written statement, it can benefit the party to be transposed as plaintiff so as to cross-examine the other defendants whom she is not suingratio¶92
Finding no good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court, the High Court declined interference and dismissed the petitionratio¶93

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — transposition of defendant as plaintiff — Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC — suit for partition (O.S. No.21/2015, Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Kollegal) — defendant No.14 sought transposition as plaintiff No.2 pleading conflict of interest with co-defendants whose pleas were diametrically opposite — trial Court allowed by order dated 10.10.2025 (Annexure-G) — writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendant No.12: HELD, the averments in para 4 of the affidavit clearly establish a conflict of interest between the defendants; in a partition suit plaintiffs and defendants are on equal footing, and a defendant contradicted by co-defendants' written statements benefits from transposition so as to cross-examine them; the trial Court's well reasoned order called for no interference — Petition dismissed. (No precedent discussed.)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47345 WP No. 33108 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 33108 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI H K SHIVANNA S/O LATE H. KAPANINAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS KOLLEGAL TALUK-571439 R/AT UDDANUR VILLAGE, HANUR HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK - 571439 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SUNITHA P C.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. PUTTANANJAMMA D/O LATE H. KAPANINAYAKA, W/O KULLIMADANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT UDDANUR VILLAGE, HANUR HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571439 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

SRI. K. MAHADEVAPPA, S/O LATE H. KAPANINAYAKA, R/AT NO. E-18, SANKAMMA NILAYA ROAD, MALAI MAHADESHWARA HILLS VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571490 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT REPTD. BY SPA HOLDER MEENAKSHAMMA

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47345 WP No. 33108 of 2025

HC-KAR

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE NANJAMARINAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

SRI. UMESH K.N, S/O LATE NANJAMARINAYAKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

SRI. KAPANI @ LAKSHMINAYAKA, S/O LATE NANJAMARINAYAKA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT UDDANUR VILLAGE, HANUR HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571439. CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

SMT. PREMA, D/O LATE NANJAMARINAYAKA W/O LATE NAGANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT COOK AT GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, MUGUR VILLAGE, T. NARASIPURA TALUK-577413, MYSORE DISTRICT

SMT. VANAJAKSHI, D/O LATE NANJAMARINAYAKA, W/O DRIVER NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT HOSA KURUBARA BEEDI, K.S.R.T.C. DEPO ROAD, NEAR TO KANAKA SAMUDAYABHAVANA KOLLEGAL CITY AND TALUK-571440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

SMT. DRAKSHAYINI, D/O LATE NANJAMARINAYAKA, W/O GOVINDANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47345 WP No. 33108 of 2025

HC-KAR

R/AT KANNUR VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571443, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

SMT. KAMALA, D/O LATE NANJAMARINAYAKA, W/O RAJU (GOPAL BAKERY), AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT MUNDIGUNDAM VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

SMT. PUTTAMANGALAMMA, W/O LATE K. KEMPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

SMT. PUSHPA, D/O LATE K. KEMPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

SRI. SURESHA, S/O LATE K. KEMPARAJU, SINCE DEAD REPTD. BY HIS LRS,

SMT. RATHNAMMA @ RATHNA W/O LATE SURESHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

SRI. SANJAY KUMAR @ SANJU S/O LATE SURESHA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

SRI. MADESHA @ MAHADEVASWAMY, S/O LATE K. KEMPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

SMT. MALLAMMA D/O H. KAPINI NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.9 TO 15

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47345 WP No. 33108 of 2025

HC-KAR

ALL ARE R/AT UDDANUR VILLAGE, HANUR HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571439 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

SMT. SHIVAMMA, D/O LATE H. KAPANINAYAKA, W/O RANGASWAMYNAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT KANNUR VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571443, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA, D/O LATE H.KAPANINAYAKA W/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KURUBARADODDI VILLAGE, RAMAPURA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571439 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT .

SRI. BASAVARADHYA, S/O LATE CHANDRA SHEKARA ARADHYA, MAJOR,

SMT. GAYATHRI, W/O BASAVARADHYA, MAJOR,

REKHA, D/O BASAVARADHYA, MAJOR,

SRI. SANTHOSH, S/O BASAVARADHYA, MAJOR, RESPONDENT NO. 18 TO 21 ALL ARE R/AT UDDANURU VILLAGE, HANUR HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571439 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47345 WP No. 33108 of 2025

HC-KAR

SRI. V. CHANDRA, S/O VENKATACHALA, R/AT DODDALATHURU VILLAGE, RAMAPURA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571444 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS. DIRECT TO QUASH ORDER PASSED ON THE APPLICATION ON L.A. NO. XIV UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGAL IN O.S. NO.21/2015 DATED 10.10.2025 UNDER ANNEXURE-G BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION., AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who is the defendant No.12 before the trial Court in OS No.21/2015.

This Court does not find the need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents, who are the codefendants and plaintiff before the trial Court, for the reason that this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47345 WP No. 33108 of 2025

HC-KAR

The short point for consideration before this

Court is whether the trial Court has committed any illegality or perversity in allowing the application permitting the respondent No.1//defendant No.14 to be transposed as plaintiff No.2.

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.12 that the order passed by the trial Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the materials placed on record and an abuse of the process of Court.

Parties shall be referred to as per their status in the trial Court.

In a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff, the petitioner is defendant No.12. The applicant who has sought for transposing as plaintiff No.2 is respondent No.1/defendant No.14. It is the further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial judge has committed an error in not appreciating that the

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47345 WP No. 33108 of 2025

HC-KAR

defendant No.14 had filed a similar identical application earlier, which came to be rejected as the defendant No.14 withdrew the said application. It is further contended that the defendant No.14 filed the present application after the time of completion of cross examination of PW1 which would alter the nature of the proceedings and cause prejudice to the petitioner and other defendants who have already adduced their evidence and cross examined the witnesses.

It is further contended by learned counsel for

the petitioner that the cases of respondent No.2/plaintiff and respondent No.1/defendant No.14 are identical and one and the same, and their interests are also one and the same. Therefore, she contends that defendant No.14 is now colluding with the plaintiff and has accordingly filed this application to transpose herself as plaintiff No.2 from

that of defendant No.14. Further, it is contended that defendant No.14 has filed the present application to protract and prolong the proceedings rather than going

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:47345 WP No. 33108 of 2025

HC-KAR

forward with the cross examination if any, and adducing

further evidence.

It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the earlier occasion the very same defendant No.14 had filed application to transpose herself as plaintiff, which came to be withdrawn. Therefore, multiple application for the very same reason cannot be allowed. Therefore, this application which is allowed by the trial Court, permitting transposition of defendant No.14 to plaintiff No.2 is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. The same requires to be set aside.

It is pertinent to note that in the affidavit

annexed to the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC at para 4, defendant No.14 has stated as under

"As the defense set up by the first defendant and other respective defendants canvassing alleged partition, including they canvassed some of the plaint schedule properties or not the joint family

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47345 WP No. 33108 of 2025

HC-KAR

properties. And presently I am one of the defendants in the above case there is a conflict of interest amongst the defendants. In addition to that the claim of me and other respective defendants are diametrically opposite to each other. And hence retaining me as one of the defendants leads to complicate the matter in issue, and there is a probability of conducting the cross examination of said respective defendants. By that reason by transposing me as one of the plaintiffs I may be able to conduct the case effectively and in a proper manner as known to law, and also it has not taken away that defensive right if any accrued to the other defendants, including nothing will be caused to the plaintiff."

In view of such a statement made by the defendant No.14 in her affidavit annexed to the application, the trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the contesting parties to the application has allowed the application and permitted the defendant No.14 to be transposed as plaintiff No. 2.

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47345 WP No. 33108 of 2025

HC-KAR

This Court need not delve into the merits of the

matter, as what is sought for is only the transposition of the defendant No. 14 as plaintiff No.2. The averments made in Para No.4 of the affidavit annexed to the application very clearly establish there is a conflict of interest between the defendants, as they have made some diametrically opposite statement of objections that would contradict their own case and there may be a need as stated for defendant No.14 to cross examine the other defendants. Therefore, defendant No.14 has sought to transpose herself as plaintiff No.2 which would make it easier for her to cross examine the witnesses who are codefendants in order to effectively adjudicate her case and her rights which are similar to that of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court

does not call for any interference, as the same is a very well reasoned and considered order in view of the averments made by the defendant No.14 with regard to conflict of interest with the co-defendants on equal

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47345 WP No. 33108 of 2025

HC-KAR

footing. Either way, in a suit for partition, plaintiffs and the defendants are also plaintiffs or defendants on equal footing. But when there is a contradiction made in the written statement, it could be beneficial for the party to be transposed as plaintiff No. 2 so that she can cross examine

the other defendants whom she is not suing. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

RCK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4