Allowed¶59

Sri Manmatha v. Sri Ramaiah

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2025WP/6949/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of persons claiming to be children of the second wife in final decree proceedings; Order I Rule 10(2) / Order I Rule 10 CPC; necessary party versus coparcener status; insufficiency of bare affidavit without material particulars of marriage or parentage; alternative remedy through independent suit; writ of certiorari under Articles 226-227; Koratagere / Tumkur District; partition suit O.S.No.125/1996 (1/4th share each to petitioner and respondent No.1); FDP No.12/2019; W.P. No.6949/2020 (GM-CPC); NC: 2025:KHC:24517; decided 07-07-2025 by Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the order dated 16.01.2020 passed on the application of respondent Nos.5 & 6 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC in FDP No.12/2019 by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Koratagere set aside; the said application rejected; no order as to costs.

Sri Manmatha Vs Sri Ramaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court rightly allowed respondent Nos.5 & 6's application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to be impleaded in FDP No.12/2019, when the accompanying affidavit contained no material particulars proving that Smt.Kempakka was the second wife of Ramaiah and that the applicants are his children. +1 more

¶52

Court's answer

The affidavit accompanying the impleading application filed by respondent Nos.5 & 6 did not provide any material particulars to prove that Smt.Kempakka was the second wife of Ramaiah, the date of marriage, or that the applicants are the children of Smt.Kempakka and respondent No.1; entertaining the application on a bare statement in the affidavit was an incorrect approach by the trial Court.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The objections on record show that the petitioner had clearly denied that respondent Nos.5 & 6 were coparceners at the time of filing of the suit, notwithstanding the contention that there was no denial of relationship.

¶52

Key takeaways

If respondent Nos.5 & 6 are able to prove that they are the children of respondent No.1, it is open to them to proceed against respondent No.1 by filing an independent suit, and no prejudice would be caused to them.obiter¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), 07.07.2025, W.P. No.6949/2020 (GM-CPC) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution: Allowed. The order dated 16.01.2020 of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Koratagere in FDP No.12/2019, whereby respondent Nos.5 & 6 — claiming to be the children of Smt.Kempakka, the second wife of respondent No.1 Ramaiah — were impleaded under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, is set aside and the impleading application is rejected. Held: the affidavit accompanying the application furnished no material particulars of the marriage or of parentage; entertaining an impleadment application on a bare affidavit statement is an incorrect approach; the petitioner's objections had clearly denied the applicants' coparcener status at the time of filing O.S.No.125/1996 (in which the petitioner and respondent No.1 held 1/4th share each); if the applicants later prove parentage, they may file an independent suit against respondent No.1 without prejudice. No order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24517 W.P. No.6949/2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.6949/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶8

SRI. MANMATHA S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT. PUTTAMMANAPALYA DASARAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI KORATGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572129.

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA S, ADV.)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. RAMAIAH S/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS.

¶13

SMT. KEMPAKKA W/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.

¶14

SRI. MAHADEVAIAH S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶15

SRI. RAJANNA S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶16

ALL ARE R/AT : PUTTAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:24517 W.P. No.6949/2020

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572129

¶21

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT. BANDEPALYA, KOLALA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572129.

¶22

SMT. NAGARATHNA W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.230, 9TH CROSS 3RD MAIN, AGRAHARA LAYOUT NEAR POOJAMMA TEMPLE YELAHANKA, BANGALORE 560064.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. C. PATTABI RAMAN, ADV., FOR R1, R2, R5 AND R6 SRI. T.N. ARAKESWARA, ADV., FOR R3 R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227

¶26

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 16.01.2020 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AT KORATAGERE, IN FDP NO.12/2019 VIDE ANNXE. CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF CPC & ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:24517 W.P. No.6949/2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶34

"(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction by quashing the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the Civil Judge at Koratagere, in F.D.P.No.12/2019 vide Annexure-E.

¶35

(b) consequently dismiss the application filed under order I Rule 10(2) of CPC."

¶36

Sri.Nagaraja S., learned counsel for the petitioner

¶37

submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for partition and separate possession against Sri.Ramaiah and others. The said suit came to be decreed on 19.02.2000. Thereafter, Final Decree Proceedings (FDP) are initiated and in the said proceedings, respondent Nos.5 & 6 have filed an application for impleading, contending that they are the children of Smt.Kempakka, the second wife of Ramaiah. The trial Court, without considering the objections filed by the petitioner and also without taking note of the fact that they are not the coparceners of the family, proceeded to allow the application. It is submitted that the petitioner has specifically denied that the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:24517 W.P. No.6949/2020

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

respondent Nos.5 & 6/applicants are not co-parceners at the time of filing of the suit, hence, they denied the relationship. However, the trial Court has incorrectly recorded the finding that there is no denial of relationship and proceeded to allow the application. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned order by allowing the petition.

¶42

Per contra, Sri.C.Pattabi Raman, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 & 6 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that respondent Nos.5 & 6 have specifically averred in the affidavit that they are the children of Smt.Kempakka, who is second wife of respondent No.1, and the petitioner herein has not denied the said fact in the objections. Hence, the trial Court considered the same and recorded the finding that to avoid further litigation, arrayed the respondent Nos.5 & 6 as parties in the FDP. It is submitted that knowing fully well that respondent Nos.5 & 6 are the children of respondent No.1, the petitioner has not arrayed them in the said suit which has been rightly considered by the trial Court and allowed the application, hence, the same does not call for any interference in the present petition.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:24517 W.P. No.6949/2020

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 & 6 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the sides.

¶47

The petitioner has filed O.S.No.125/1996 against the respondent Nos.1 to 4 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be decreed, holding that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are entitled to partition and separate possession of their 1/4^th share each in the suit schedule properties. The petitioner initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No.12/2019. During the pendency of the said proceedings, respondent Nos.5 & 6 have filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking to implead them as respondents in the said proceedings. The affidavit accompanying the said application indicates that the respondent Nos.5 & 6 claimed that they are the children of Smt.Kempakka, the second wife of Ramaiah. It is averred that without arraying them as parties in O.S.No.125/1996, the suit was decreed. Hence, they are the necessary parties being the co-parceners of the family. The said application was opposed by

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:24517 W.P. No.6949/2020

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

the petitioner stating that the respondent Nos.5 & 6/applicants are not the co-parceners at the time of filing of the suit in O.S.No.125/1996.

¶52

The contention of the respondents that there is no denial of relationship of respondent Nos.5 & 6 with regard to the fact that they are the children of Smt.Kempakka, the second wife of Ramaiah. However, the objections on record indicate that the petitioners have clearly denied they are not co-parceners at the time of filing of the suit. Be that as it may, the affidavit accompanying the application filed by respondent Nos.5 & 6 does not provide any material particulars to prove that Smt.Kempakka is the second wife of Ramaiah and their date of marriage and the respondent Nos.5 & 6 are the children of Smt.Kempakka and respondent No.1-Ramaiah. In the absence of any material particulars, entertaining the application on bare statement in the affidavit, in my considered view is the incorrect approach of the trial Court. Ultimately, if the respondent Nos.5 & 6 are able to prove that they are the children of respondent No.1, it is open for them to proceed against respondent No.1 by filing independent suit and no

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:24517 W.P. No.6949/2020

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

prejudice would be caused to them. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. Writ petition is allowed .

¶59

ii. The order dated 16.01.2020 passed on the application filed by respondent Nos.5 & 6 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC in FDP No.12/2019 by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Koratagere, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the said application is rejected.

¶60

iii. No order to costs.

¶61

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶62

BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri Manmatha v. Sri Ramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manmatha v. Sri Ramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. G.S. Rajappa Vs Smt. Rathnamma

Smt Muniyamma Vs T Venkatappa

Smt. Puttamma Vs the Central Bank of India

Sri. B. v. Ramachandra Reddy Vs Sri. T. Krishna Reddy

Sri Balakrishna K P Vs Sri K P Puttaraju

Kum Nanda Gouthami Vs Sri G Thimmappa