Dismissed¶44-45

Hanumanthappa v. K S Govinda Raju

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of parties – Application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2026WP/32694/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, WP No. 32694 of 2025 (GM-CPC), K. V. Aravind J., decided 13.02.2026 — impleadment of third party; necessary party; Order I Rule 10(2) CPC; Section 151 CPC; suit for bare/permanent injunction; plaintiff's freedom to choose defendants (dominus litis); claimant of independent/adverse possession rights not a necessary party; parallel declaration suit O.S.No.252/2024; Article 227 writ against order dated 23.09.2025 in I.A. No.3 (Annexure-GH) in O.S. No.869/2020 before Principal Civil Judge Bangalore Rural; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

This Court is in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Trial Court rejecting the impleadment application. ¶38

Hanumanthappa Vs K S Govinda Raju — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶44-45

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, claiming absolute ownership of the suit schedule property by adverse possession in O.S. No.252/2024, is a necessary party to O.S. No.869/2020 (a suit for permanent injunction) so as to be impleaded as defendant No.7 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC.

¶32

Court's answer

This Court is in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Trial Court rejecting the impleadment application.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

In a suit for injunction, it is open to the plaintiff to arraign only those defendants who are alleged to be interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶38

Key takeaways

In a suit for bare injunction, any other person claiming an independent right in the property is not a necessary party; a person who has instituted a separate suit (O.S. No.252/2024) may agitate all his rights and contentions therein, and those rights need not be adjudicated in the suit confined to the relief of permanent injunction.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — Impleadment of parties — Application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC — Writ petition under Article 227 by unsuccessful applicant seeking impleadment as defendant No.7 in O.S. No.869/2020, a suit for permanent injunction concerning residential converted land bearing Survey No.12/11 (new No.27), measuring 1 acre, Uttarahalli Manavartha Kaval, Bengaluru South Taluk — Applicant claimed ownership by adverse possession and had instituted O.S.No.252/2024 for declaration of ownership against the first plaintiff — Held: in a suit for injunction the plaintiff may arraign only those defendants alleged to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment; in a suit for bare injunction a person claiming an independent right in the property is not a necessary party; the applicant's rights fall to be adjudicated in his own suit O.S.No.252/2024 — Trial Court's order dated 23.09.2025 upheld; writ petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9235 WP No. 32694 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 32694 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT THALAGHATTAPURA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560062.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SURESH K,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

K S GOVINDA RAJU S/O G.M SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.227, 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR, NAGARBHAVI, BANGALORE- 560091.

¶15

V.R SUJAY, S/O V.C RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.68/1, SHARADAMBA ELITE, FLAT NO.101 12TH CROSS,SARAKHI MAIN ROAD, J.P NAGAR 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9235 WP No. 32694 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

B.G DEEPU

¶19

S/O SRI GOWDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.148, VIDYUTNAGAR,SALAGAME ROAD, HASSAN-573201. 4. DR.VIKRAM B.M S/O B.R MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6102, SHOBHA DAFFODILS, 24TH MAIN, 2ND SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560102.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/9/2025 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 869/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL, BANGALORE IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-GH AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The unsuccessful applicant for impleadment in O.S. No.869/2020 has preferred the present petition challenging the order dated 23.09.2025.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:9235 WP No. 32694 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The respondents herein instituted O.S.

¶30

No.869/2020 against the defendants therein seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the respondents’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶31

The suit schedule property is a piece and parcel of residential converted land bearing Survey No.12/11 (new No.27), measuring 1 acre, situated at Uttarahalli Manavartha Kaval, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru.

¶32

3.1 The petitioner in the said suit filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to implead himself as defendant No.7. In the said application, it is contended that, in respect of the very same property described as the suit schedule property, the petitioner has instituted O.S.No.252/2024 seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner by virtue of adverse possession as against the first plaintiff in O.S.No.869/2020. It is further averred that, since the property involved in both suits is one and the same, the petitioner is a necessary party to O.S. No.869/2020.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:9235 WP No. 32694 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

3.2 The Trial Court, under the impugned order, has observed that O.S.No.869/2020 is a suit for bare injunction against alleged interference by the defendants therein. The Trial Court further held that the claim of adverse possession set up in O.S.No.252/2024 has no bearing on the issues arising in O.S.No.869/2020.

¶37

3.3 The Trial Court also observed that, in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff is dominus litis and it is open to the plaintiff to choose the defendants against whom interference is alleged. It was further held that, in a suit for bare injunction, a third party cannot be impleaded as a defendant in the absence of any cause of action against such party.

¶38

Having considered the pleadings in the writ petition and the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, this Court is in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. As rightly observed, in a suit for injunction, it is open to the plaintiff to arraign only those defendants who are alleged to be interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:9235 WP No. 32694 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

In a suit for bare injunction, any other person claiming an independent right in the property is not a necessary party. More so, the alleged right of the petitioner in respect of the suit schedule property is yet to be adjudicated in O.S. No.252/2024. Having instituted the said suit, it is open to the petitioner to agitate all his rights and contentions therein. Those rights and contentions need not be adjudicated in the present suit, which is confined to the relief of permanent injunction.

¶43

In the light of the above, this Court finds no merit

¶44

in the writ petition and, accordingly, the writ petition is

¶45

dismissed .

¶46

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶47

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Hanumanthappa v. K S Govinda Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumanthappa v. K S Govinda Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri R Soma Vs Sri Anne Gowda

The Municipal Commissioner Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri J Krishna Vs Sri Nagaraj Reddy

M C Krishnegowda Vs M C Chandrashekaraiah

Sri.H.N.Ramesha Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri R Muniyappa Vs Retail Work India Pvt. Ltd.