Sri Siddagangaiah K S v. Smt Kempeeramma

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2026WP/25511/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of co-family members in partition suit; necessary and proper parties; Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC; Article 227 Constitution of India; writ petition GM-CPC; O.S.No.103/2016 III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Tumakuru; earlier partition suit OS.No.45/2009 dismissed; genealogical tree; RTC extracts; interest in suit schedule properties; res judicata; High Court of Karnataka; Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju; decided 19 February 2026; NC: 2026:KHC:10358; WP No. 25511 of 2022.

What did the court decide?

It cannot be disputed that the applicants are also entitled to the suit schedule property; learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to show the Court any document or averment to the contrary. ¶83

Sri Siddagangaiah K S Vs Smt Kempeeramma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:10358 WP No. 25511 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 25511 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SIDDAGANGAIAH.K.S. S/O LATE NANJAMMA AND SIDDANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶8

SRI. RAJANNA.K.S. S/O LATE NANJAMMA AND SIDDANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH ARE R/AT KATENAHALLI VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI -577 530, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. KEMPEERAMMA W/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,

¶14

SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶15

SMT. VEERAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKERAIAH, D/O LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. L.SHIVARUDRAIAH S/O LATE LINGAPPA,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:10358 WP No. 25511 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶21

SMT. L.SIDDAGANGAMMA D/O LATE LINGAPPA, W/O BOMMALINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶22

SRI. R.KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE RANGAPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, SRI. RANGA NILAYA, 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA NAGARA, TUMAKURU TOWN -572 101.

¶23

SRI. ADAVEESHAIAH S/O LATE SOMAIAH @ KEMPAEERAMMA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶24

SRI. CHIKKAPPA S/O LATE SOMAIAH @ KEMPEERAMMA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶25

SRI. SIDDAVEERAIAH S/O LATE SOMAIAH AND KEMPEERAMMA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶26

SRI. ERANNA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶27

SRI. RUDRAIAH S/O LATE VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶28

SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶29

SRI. B.K.MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE KEMPEERAIAH,

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:10358 WP No. 25511 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶34

SRI. CHIKKAVEERAIAH S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶35

SRI. NANJAIAH S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶36

SRI. B.RAMAIAH S/O LATE BASAVEGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶37

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 & 7 TO 16 ARE R/AT BOMMEGOWDANAPALYA, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R9; R10-SERVED; V/O/DTD:02.01.23, NOTICE TO R1 TO 46DISPENSED WITH)

¶40

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 31.10.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT TUMKUR, IN O.S.NO.103/2016, PASSED ON THE IA NO.9 TO 11, FILED BY THE R7 TO R16, UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2), VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND THEREBY ALLOW THE IAs NO.9 TO 11, FILED BY THE PETITIONERS, VIDE ANNEXURE-L, M AND O AND ETC.

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:10358 WP No. 25511 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 31.10.2022 passed on IAs.IX to XI filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were allowed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, this application has been allowed.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the applicants who are parties in IA.Nos.IX to XI are not members of the family of the petitioners and thus, their presence is not necessary in a suit for partition. Thus, the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity.

¶49

The service to respondent Nos.1 to 6 was dispensed with by this Court on 02.01.2023. None appears for respondent No.10 despite service. However, the remaining respondents/applicants i.e., respondent Nos.7 to 9 and

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:10358 WP No. 25511 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

respondent Nos.11 to 16, who are applicants seeking impleadment, are represented before this Court.

¶54

Learned counsel for the respondents/applicants submit that the respondents are part of the extended family of the petitioners/plaintiffs. They submit that previously a suit was filed by the family members including the respondents herein and the petitioners for partition and 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule properties being OS.No.45/2009 [hereinafter called the ‘first suit’]. The petitioner/plaintiff before this Court was defendant No.2 in the first suit.

¶55

4.1. The learned counsel further submits that in the

¶56

application they have explained the family tree and how the parties are related to each other. It is thus contended that the applicants are necessary and proper parties to the present suit.

¶57

The learned Trial Court after examining the applications and the contentions of the parties has given a

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:10358 WP No. 25511 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

finding that the applicants are related to each other. More specifically, relying on the genealogical tree as well as the RTC extracts, it has been held that the applicants are family members, who have interest in the suit schedule property. The relevant extract of the Impugned Order is set below:

¶62

“8. Upon verification of the findings in OS No.45/2009, it could be noticed that the 2^nd defendant in the said suit who is the plaintiff herein had submitted the genealogical tree filed by the plaintiff. The genealogical tree and RTC extracts produced along with the present applications would prima-facie go to show that the applicants are also one of the family members who have an interest in the suit schedule properties. Under such circumstances, the applicants under IAs No.9 to 11 are found to be proper and necessary parties for the effective adjudication of the suit land. It is also found essential to note that already a suit proceeding has taken place with respect to the suit schedule properties seeking for the relief of partition and separate possession wherein plaintiff as well as the defendants herein and the applicants were parties and the said suit was dismissed. The said aspect could also be considered along with the merits of the present suit regarding principles of resjudicata and at this stage, the applicants have made out prima-facie grounds and established that they have an interest in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the applicants are considered to be proper and necessary parties for the effective adjudication of the suit on hand. Accordingly, the point under consideration is answered in the Affirmative.”

¶63

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:10358 WP No. 25511 of 2022

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Three applications IA.IX has been filed by respondent Nos.7 to 9, IA.X has been filed by respondent No.10 and IA.XI has been filed by respondent Nos.11 to 16. These applications are pari materia to each other. They also set

¶68

out the genealogical tree. Paragraph Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the application I.A.IX is extracted below in this behalf:

¶69

"2. That the Genealogy of the parties and the propositor of Channegowda is as follows.

¶70

That one Channegowda had four sons namely (1) Chikkaveerappa (2) Basavegowda (3) Kemperaiah, (4) Chikkanna. All of them are died. The 1ª son of Channegowda namely Chikkaveerappa had got two daughters and four sons namely (1) Kempeeramma (the mother of the applicants) (2) Channegowda (3) Bommegowda (4) Veeregowda (5) Gangamma (6) Lingappa. The 1^st daughter of Chikkaveerappa namely Kemperamma and her husband Somaiah died leaving behind bar children namely (1) Chikkaveerappa (died) (2) Chikkeramma (died) (3) Adaveshaiah (applicant No.1) Chikkappa (applicant No.2) and (5) Siddaveeraiah applicant No.3). That the 2^nd son of Chikkerappa namely Channegowda died leaving behind his wife Kemperamma. The 3^rd son of Chikkerappa namely Bommeowda, and his wife Siddamma are died leaving behind his only daughter byname Nanjamma (plaintiff). The 4^th son of Chikkaverappa namely Veeregowda died leaving behind his wife Parvathamma and children namely Manjamma, Girisha, and Kavitha who are all not parties in this case. The said Girsiha is also died. The 2^nd daughter of Chikkaveerappa namely Gangamma also died leaving behind her sons namely Rudraiah, and Somaiah, who is also died. The last son of Chikkerappa namely Lingappa and his wife Chikkeramma also died leaving behind their children namely Veeramma, Shivarudraiah, and

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:10358 WP No. 25511 of 2022

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Siddagangamma (the defendants No.3 to 5). The 2^nd son of Channegowda namely Basavegowda and his wife Bommakka also died leaving behind their children namely (1) Chikkeramma who is also died (2) Veeranna (died) (3) Kemperaiah (died) (4) Chikkeraiah and (5) Ningamma (6) Nanjaiah (7) Ramaiah. The 2^nd son of Basavegowda namely Veeranna and his wife Siddagangamma also died leaving behind his two sons namely Rudraiah and Basavaraju. The 3^rd son of Channegowda namely Kemperaiah and his wife namely Somakka were died issueless. The 4^th son of Channegowda namely Chikkanna and his wife Ningamma also died leaving behind their only daughter namely Siddalingamma. The said Siddalingamma also died leaving her sons namely (1) Rudraiah (died) (2) Nanjaiah (3) Gangadharaiah (4) Chikkanna.

¶75

3. It is submitted that the 1" son of Channegowda namely Chikkaveerappa (the father of the applicants mother namely Kemperamma and grandfather of the applicants) namely Chikkaveerappa and his brothers, Kemperaiah and Chikkanna have got divided their family properties about several decades orally. In the said partition the suit schedule properties except land bearing Sy.No.55 measuring 5.00 acres situated at Puradagunte village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk (Item No.2 in the 1" schedule) was fallen to the share of Chikkaveerappa the maternal grandfather of the applicants. As per the partition said above all the four persons said above enjoyed their shares respectively. Similarly the maternal grandfather of the applicants namely Chikkerappa have enjoyed the suit schedule properties except Sy.No.55 in his own right as full and absolute owner.

¶76

4. It is submitted that the land bearing Sy.No.6 measuring 6.32 guntas situated at Puradagunte village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk (item No.4 in the 1" schedule of the plaint) is the ancestral property of Kemperamma the mother of these applicants. It is submitted the 1^st daughter of Chikkerappa namely Kemperamma (the mother of the applicants) was married to one Somaiah who belongs to

¶77

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:10358 WP No. 25511 of 2022

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

very poor family. The said Kemperamma and her husband namely Somaiah, who are the parents of the applicants were very poor. Therefore the father of Kemperamma namely Chikkaveerappa the maternal grandfather of the applicants had given the above said land bearing Sy.No.6 measuring 6.32 guntas in favour of his daughter namely Kemperamma about several decades ago orally and he has given aidland to Kemperamma out of love and affection and also with a good intention to uplift her economically. Since then the said Kemperamma was in exclusive physical possession and enjoyment of the above said property in her own right as full and absolute owner till her death. After death of Kemperamma and her husband these applicants are continuing in physical possession and enjoyment of the above said property in their own right as full and absolute owners. Subsequently the applicants who are the brothers have also got divided the above said land bearing Sy.No.6 measuring 6.12 guntas and their other properties orally during the year 1973. In the said partition an extent of 204 guntas was allotted to the share of each of the applicants equally. Since then the applicants are enjoying their extent of land that are fallen to their respective share as full and absolute owners. The applicants are in exclusive physical possession and enjoyment of their respective share of 2.04 guntas of each in Sy.No.6 of Puradagunte village as full and absolute owners. The revenue records were also made out in the name of these applicants and also paid kandayam to the Government."

¶81

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶82

It cannot be thus disputed that the applicants are

¶83

also entitled to the suit schedule property. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been unable to show this Court any document or averment to the contrary.

¶84