Smt Puttalingamma Vs S Kempaiah

SMT. PUTTALINGAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKAKALASHETTYY W/O MAHADEVASHETTY AGE 60 YEARS, R/O NONRNURU VILLAGE, CHENNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST PIN CODE-562 160

¶10

SMT.KAMALA

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

D/O LATE CHIKKAKALASHETTYY W/O MAHADEVASHETTY AGE 60 YEARS, R/O NONRNURU VILLAGE, CHENNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST PIN CODE-562 160

¶13

SMT.JAYA D/O LATE CHIKKAKALASHETTYY W/O NAGANNA AGE 55 YEARS, R/O NONRNURU VILLAGE, CHENNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST PIN CODE-562 160

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI.S.V.DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28192 WP No. 28288 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

S.KEMPAIAH

¶20

S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS KEMPEGOWDANAKPPALU VILLAGE BANNURU HOBLI T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 101

¶21

KARIMALLEGOWDA S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS KEMPEGOWDANAKPPALU VILLAGE BANNURU HOBLI T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 101

¶22

SMT.LAKSHMAMMA @ LAKSHMI W/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS KEMPEGOWDANAKPPALU VILLAGE BANNURU HOBLI T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 101

¶23

S.MANU S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS KEMPEGOWDANAKPPALU VILLAGE BANNURU HOBLI T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 101

¶24

S.ANU S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28192 WP No. 28288 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

KEMPEGOWDANAKPPALU VILLAGE BANNURU HOBLI T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 101

¶28

S.TANUJA S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS KEMPEGOWDANAKPPALU VILLAGE BANNURU HOBLI T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 101

¶29

MARIGOWDA S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS KEMPEGOWDANAKPPALU VILLAGE BANNURU HOBLI, T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 101

¶30

HOMBEGOWDA S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS KEMPEGOWDANAKPPALU VILLAGE BANNURU HOBLI, T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 101

¶31

K. SIDDEGOWDA S/O KARIMALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS KEMPEGOWDANAKPPALU VILLAGE BANNURU HOBLI, T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 101

¶32

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY D.HOSMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R8 R2 TO R7 AND R9 ARE SERVED)

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28192 WP No. 28288 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 23.08.2025 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED ON I.A.NO. 4/2025 IN O.S.NO. 27/2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT T.NARASIPURA.

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.4/2025 in O.S.No.27/2014 dated 23.08.2025 by the Senior Civil Judge, T.Narasipura, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶40

The petitioners before this Court are proposed defendant Nos.9, 10 and 11. The facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein who is the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.27/2014 seeking partition and separate possession against the other respondents herein. It is the case of the petitioners that their father Chikkakalashetty was the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.77/B, measuring 12 guntas, Sy.No.55/2, measuring 1 acre and Sy.No.54/4, measuring 15 guntas, Sy.No.77/7, measuring 33 guntas. The said properties

¶41

have been granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of Chikkakalashetty and also the Land Tribunal has granted

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28192 WP No. 28288 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

occupancy right in favour of Chikkakalashetty on 29.09.1981 and also issued Form No.10 dated 05.11.1981. As per Form No.10, the Land Tribunal has issued the Grant Certificate in favour of Chikkakalashetty on 05.11.1981. Subsequently, the Tahasildar, T.Narasipura has ordered to change the khatha in the name of Chikkakalashetty in respect of the said properties. His name has been mentioned in the RTC column in respect of

¶45

the said properties. Hence, the father of the proposed defendants was in possession and enjoyment of the said properties as absolute owner. When such being the case, behind the back of petitioners’ father Chikkakalashetty and the petitioners/proposed defendants, the defendant No.1 has got changed the khatha of the said properties in his name and the proposed defendants preferred appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru, against the said order and the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and remanded the same to the Tahasildar, by giving direction to the Tahasildar to verify the documents and to pass the order as per law. The Tahasildar has passed an order stating that Chikkakalashetty is the owner as per the order of

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:28192 WP No. 28288 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the Land Tribunal and also has ordered to continue the khatha in respect of the said properties.

¶50

It is stated that defendant No.1 has no right, title over the suit schedule properties. After the death of Chikkakalashetty, the petitioners who are the legal heirs became the absolute owners of the properties. It is their case that the plaintiff colluding with defendant No.1 and others, has included the properties as item No.15, 16, 17 and 18 in the suit schedule properties. Recently, the petitioners came to know about the pendency of the suit from the villagers and the plaintiff and other defendants have colluded with each other and have filed a compromise petition. Hence, the petitioners had filed I.A.No.4/2025 to implead themselves as proposed defendant Nos.9 to 11. That application came to be rejected by the trial Court.

¶51

While rejecting the application, the trial Court had observed that it is clear that the dispute relating to grant of the properties came to be adjudicated before various authorities including the Civil Court and High Court of Karnataka. It is the tone and tenor of almost all proceedings mentioned that the

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28192 WP No. 28288 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

appropriate authority is competent to adjudicate the lis in question. It is pertinent to note that the civil dispute relating to the grant of those properties came to be adjudicated and dismissed upon merits. Hence, impleading the proposed defendants to another civil dispute which is involved in the present case does not serve any purpose rather it leads to enlarge the scope of the litigation. Therefore, the presence of

¶55

the proposed defendants is not necessary to have a complete and effective adjudication of the case. They have only liberty to agitate their grievance before the competent and appropriate authority. Accordingly, the I.A. was rejected.

¶56

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the orders of the Revenue Court, contrary to law, without application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the trial Court had failed to consider the fact that defendant No.2 in the suit had suppressed the pending proceedings in R.P.No.47/2025 before the Special Deputy Commissioner. The Judge had failed to consider the order passed by the Revenue Authority. It is submitted that the

¶57

8 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:28192 WP No. 28288 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the suit as their rights were involved in the particular property. The trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that the khatha of defendant No.1 was cancelled in respect of the said lands and pending for adjudication before the Assistant Commissioner by virtue of the remand order passed by the Spl.D.C. Hence, defendant No.2 does not have khatha in respect of the lands and he has no right to enter into compromise with the plaintiff in respect of the said lands. If the plaintiff and defendants compromise in the suit, the right of the impleading applicants will be taken away permanently. The trial Court had failed to consider the fact that the plaintiff and defendants especially defendant No.1 and other defendants are in collusion and they are ready for settlement by compromising the matter and in those circumstances, it is very much necessary to bring the applicants as defendant Nos.9 to 11 by impleading in the suit, to serve the purpose and prevent the injustice to the petitioners. It is the specific case of the petitioners that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no right and title over the said properties and they have no right to make compromise with the plaintiff. It is submitted that the petitioners are proper and

¶61

9 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:28192 WP No. 28288 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

necessary parties and if they are not impleaded in the suit, it would cause great prejudice to the petitioners. This aspect was not appreciated by the trial Court. It is submitted that on all these counts, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶65

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 8 submits that the trial Court by way of an elaborate order had given the reasons why the petitioners are not proper and necessary parties to the suit and the trial Court had rightly observed that if the petitioners are having any right, it can be adjudicated before the Revenue Authorities but not in the suit and they have no relationship with the parties in the suit. It is submitted that the trial Court had also discussed about the earlier suit filed by the father of the proposed defendants and how the suit is decreed and where the appeal is also disposed of by reserving liberty to the parties to approach the appropriate forum. The trial Court had also discussed about the history of the case before the Revenue Court and rightly held that the petitioners are not proper and necessary parties to the suit.

¶66

10 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:28192 WP No. 28288 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the proposed defendants are fighting the litigation before the Revenue Court in respect of the suit schedule properties. The khatha which was in the name of defendant No.1 was cancelled and the matter was remanded to the authority and the same is pending consideration before the Revenue Authority. It is the case of the proposed parties that plaintiff and defendant No.1 has colluded and defendant No.1 who has no right is now trying to enter into compromise and if the compromise is entered, it would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the proposed defendants. In the light of these facts, the impleadment of petitioners is very much necessary for adjudication of the disputes involved in the case. The earlier dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff’s father itself cannot

¶70

be a ground and in fact, after that, he has approached the Revenue Authority and certain orders were passed. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, if any orders are passed by the trial Court without the presence of these parties, based on the submissions of the plaintiff and the defendants, it would unnecessarily lead to multiplicity of

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:28192 WP No. 28288 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

proceedings and impleading the petitioners would be helpful for

¶75

the trial Court to adjudicate the controversy in the suit.

¶76

In the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

i. Accordingly, the order passed in I.A.No.4/2025 in O.S.No.27/2014 dated 23.08.2025 by the Senior Civil Judge, T.Narasipura, is set aside . Consequently, I.A.No.4/2025 is allowed.

¶79

ii. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration.

¶80

iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶81

iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶82

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶83

MEG

¶84

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 39

Smt Puttalingamma v. S Kempaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Puttalingamma v. S Kempaiah

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

Smt. Jamarunissa Vs Syed Ammerjan

Smt Bharathi Vs Smt Janakamma

M D Prakash Vs P Mahadevaiah

Maitri Satapathy Vs the Chief Manager SBI (Mntc)

Sri. Kantharaju Vs Smt Puttathyamma Alias Puttamma

Smt. Gangamma Vs Smt.Krishnamma