Dismissed¶65

Sri Narayanaswamy v. Sri Narayanappa

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of third parties

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026WP/21824/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil; decision 10 June 2026; W.P. No.21824/2021 (GM-CPC); judicial review under Article 227 of impleadment order; Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC applications I.A.Nos.30 and 32 in O.S.No.947/2006 (Devanahalli); necessary and proper parties; strangers to property; grant land heirs of late Appaiah; Sy.No.75 (old Sy.No.55); counter claim by defendants; writ petition rejected/devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was rejected as devoid of merits and the trial Court's order of 18.11.2021 allowing I.A.Nos.30 and 32 stands. ¶65

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs Sri Narayanappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was rejected as devoid of merits and the trial Court's order of 18.11.2021 allowing I.A.Nos.30 and 32 stands.

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should set aside the trial Court's common order dated 18.11.2021 allowing I.A.Nos.30 and 32, whereby third parties claiming descent from grantee late Appaiah were impleaded as defendant Nos.3 to 8 in O.S.No.947/2006, notwithstanding the petitioners' contention that the applicants were strangers unable to seek any relief in a declaration suit.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court allowed I.A.Nos.30 and 32 based on the applicants' specific assertion that they are descendants/legal heirs of late Appaiah (grantee of the suit land) and on the ground that defendant No.1 had taken a similar stand in his written statement; this Court finds no error in the trial Court recording that finding while allowing the applications, and holds the writ petition devoid of merits.

¶64

Key takeaways

No error is found in the trial Court's order permitting impleadment of the applicants in I.A.Nos.30 and 32; accordingly the writ petition lacks merit.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure - Impleadment of third parties - Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the common order dt. 18.11.2021 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, in O.S.No.947/2006 allowing I.A.Nos.30 and 32 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) (read with Section 151) CPC, whereby applicants claiming to be legal heirs/descendants of late Appaiah (original grantee of the suit land in Sy.No.75, old Sy.No.55) were impleaded as defendant Nos.3 to 8 - Petitioners contended the applicants were strangers to the property who could seek no relief in a declaration suit - Trial Court allowed impleadment on the applicants' specific assertions and because defendant No.1 had taken a similar stand in his written statement - High Court found no error in the trial Court's finding, held the writ petition devoid of merits and rejected it.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27987 W.P. No.21824/2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.21824/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED 52 YEARS R/AT AKLENAHALLI MALLENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶9

SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT AKLENAHALLI MALLENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. RADHAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED 35 YEARS R/AT AKLENAHALLI MALLENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶12

SMT. BHAGYA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED 31 YEARS R/AT AKLENAHALLI MALLENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶13

SMT. CHETHANA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED 28 YEARS

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:27987 W.P. No.21824/2021

¶15

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

R/AT AKLENAHALLI MALLENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶18

SRI. SUBRAMANI S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED 23 YEARS R/AT AKLENAHALLI MALLENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SMT. VASUNDARA T.P. ADV., FOR SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M. ADV.,)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED 64 YEARS R/AT NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK- 562 157.

¶23

SRI. THIMAPPA S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED 62 YEARS R/AT NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

¶24

SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA AGED 52 YEARS R/AT NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA JALA HOBLI

¶25

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

¶26

SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27987 W.P. No.21824/2021

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

AGED 35 YEARS R/AT NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA JALA HOBLI

¶30

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

¶31

SRI. SHIVARAJ S/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA AGED 29 YEARS R/AT NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

¶32

SRI. HARISH S/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA AGED 27 YEARS R/AT NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA JALA HOBLI

¶33

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

¶34

SMT. PUTTAMMA D/O LATE APPAIAH W/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED 71 YEARS R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562135.

¶35

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 65 YEARS R/AT NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA JALA HOBLI

¶36

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

¶37

SRI. APPAYANNA AGED 49 YEARS S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA R/AT NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:27987 W.P. No.21824/2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

SRI. SUBRAMANI S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 44 YEARS R/AT NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

¶42

SRI. NAGARAJA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 40 YEARS R/AT NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

¶43

SRI. MUNIANJINAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 38 YEARS R/AT NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI. KARTHIK R, ADV., FOR SRI. T.K. RAJAGOPALA, ADV., FOR R7 TO R12 V/O/DTD:10.01.2022 NOTICE TO R1 TO R6 IS D/W)

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 18.11.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 947/2006, BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI AS PER ANNX-H ON THE APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AS PER ANNX-D AND E ON I.A.NO.30 AND 32 AND THEREBY ORDER TO DISMISS THE APPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEADING & ETC.

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:27987 W.P. No.21824/2021

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

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

¶52

ORAL ORDER

¶53

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.30 and 32 in O.S.No.947/2006 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, (for short, ‘the trial Court’ ).

¶54

Smt.Vasundara T.P., learned counsel for Sri.Siddamallappa P.M., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed the suit for declaration and other reliefs. In the said suit, third parties have filed two applications viz., I.A.Nos.30 and 32 seeking for impleadment, which came to be allowed by the trial Court, without ascertaining as to how they are necessary and proper parties to suit. It is submitted that the proposed applicants are strangers to the property in question, hence, they cannot seek any relief. Therefore, they cannot be allowed to come on record in the suit filed by the petitioners for declaration. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶55

Per contra, Sri.Karthik R., learned counsel for Sri.T.K.Rajagopala, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 12

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27987 W.P. No.21824/2021

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the proposed applicants are the legal heirs of Appaiah S/o. Thirumalanayaka and the said Appaiah, being the grantee, and the applicants being are the successors in interest, if any decree is passed in relating to the property, their rights would be affected. Hence, considering the same the trial Court has rightly allowed the applications and the same does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶59

I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

¶60

The petitioners have filed the suit in O.S.No.947/2006 for the reliefs of declaration declaring that the plaintiffs are the joint owners of the suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The defendants in the said suit have filed the counter claim seeking declaration that the land was originally granted to one late Appaiah and to declare that the defendants are the descendants of late Appaiah and are also entitled to the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Further, in the said suit, two applications in I.A.Nos.30 and 32 are filed by the

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:27987 W.P. No.21824/2021

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

applicants under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to implead themselves as defendant Nos.3 to 8. The perusal of the affidavits accompanying the said applications indicate that the applicants are making specific assertion in the applications that defendant No.3 is the daughter of late Appaiah and the father of defendant Nos.4 to 8 is the class-1 legal heir of Appaiah and they have a right over the property in Sy.No.75 (old Sy.No.55), as the said land was granted to Appaih S/o. Thirumalanayaka. Based on such assertion and considering rival submissions, the trial Court has allowed the applications on the ground that the defendant No.1 has also taken the similar stand in his written statement. I do not find any error in the order of the trial Court in recording the said finding while allowing the applications in I.A.Nos.30 and 32. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the

¶65

same is rejected .

¶66

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶67

BSR

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri Narayanaswamy v. Sri Narayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narayanaswamy v. Sri Narayanappa

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 M N Dharmavratha Vs Sri K L Ramesh

Mr Jagadeesh Vs Mr Lingappa Suvarna

Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd. Vs United Breweries Ltd.

Sri. Angadi Chikka Anjinappa @ Chikka Anajinappa Vs Smt. Ammayya @ Anitha

Smt. v. Meenakumari Vs Sri v Prakash

Smt Usha Ramesh Vs Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.