Mallappa @ Muni Mallappa Vs Krishnappa

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT KOLAR, IN O.S NO 401/2021, ON IA NO-8 DATED 27/9/2025, FILED U/O I RULES 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, PRODUCED AS ANNEXEURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:6826 WP No. 3355 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

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

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

This petition by the impleading applicant in O.S.No.401/2021 is directed against the impugned order dated 27.09.2025, whereby the application I.A.No.8 filed by the petitioner-impleading applicant under Order I Rule 10 seeking impleadment as additional defendant No. 5 in the suit was rejected by the Trial Court by holding as under:

¶39

“ORDERS ON I.A.8FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE BOR/W SECTION 151 CPC BY THE APPLICANT

¶40

This order arising out of an application filed by applicant with a prayer to permit the applicant to come on record as defendant No.5 as he is necessary and proper party.

¶41

2. In support of the application the applicant sworn to an affidavit that the suit filed for the relief of declaration in respect of title over the suit schedule property. He has already filed suit against plaintiffs and defendants in O.S.No.107/2023 pending for partition and separate possession over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property in this suit is also subject matter in the suit filed by him. Another suit also filed against defendants in O.S.No.421/2022 pending before this court but plaintiff not

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:6826 WP No. 3355 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

made him as a party in this suit. However filed the separate application seeking for impleadment in the suit which is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property as the suit schedule property is the ancestral and joint family property of himself, plaintiffs and defendants in which he is also having right, title, interest and share over the suit schedule property. Under such facts and circumstances he is a proper and necessary party for proper adjudication of the matter. If the application is not allowed he will be put to hardship, injury, damage which cannot be compensated in terms of money. On the contra no injury caused either to plaintiffs or defendants if application is allowed. Hence, prayed to hardship or allow the application.

¶46

3. The said application has been resisted by plaintiffs by filing objections that the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the facts sworn to therein are all false and liable to be rejected.

¶47

4. The suit filed for the relief of declaration of title and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The defendants have filed their written statement and court also framed issues and plaintiff No.1 examined as PW.1 and marked the documents, the defendants cross examined PW.1 and now the applicant filed the present application to implead him as defendant No.5 and he has stated the facts which are false and frivolous and he is no way concerned to the suit schedule property nor to the plaintiffs. The proposed defendant in the affidavit stated that O.S.No.107/2013 is pending this fact is false since the said suit already

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:6826 WP No. 3355 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

dismissed and no way connected to each other and already the case in O.S.No.107/2013 disposed. The proposed applicant colluding with defendants filed this false and frivolous application with an intention to drag on the proceedings. Hence prayed to reject the application with costs.

¶52

5. Heard.

¶53

6. The points that arise for my consideration are:

¶54

1) Is the presence of applicant is just and necessary for determination of the dispute in controversy between the parties?

¶55

2) What Order?

¶56

7. My answer to the above points are as under:

¶57

Point No.1 :: In the Negative, Point No.2 :: As per the final Order for the following:

¶58

REASONS

¶59

8. Point No.1 :: Plaintiffs filed this suit for the relief of declaration in respect of gift deed dated 15.10.1956, wherein it is the contention of plaintiffs that one Erappa S/o Mallappa executed the registered gift deed in favour of his sister Chikkamma, accordingly the plaintiffs acquired the suit schedule property. By virtue of gift deed the said Chikkamma was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property but RTC not changed on the basis of gift deed but katha mutated in her name. After the death of Chikkamma she had two sons viz., Muniyappa and Krishnappa who

¶60

6 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:6826 WP No. 3355 of 2026

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

acquired the suit schedule property on the basis of pavativarasu and they have constructed a houses and on the basis of possession over the suit schedule property since from the decades and the plaintiffs are residing in the said houses constructed in the suit schedule property, such being the thing the defendants trying to interfere with the suit schedule property on the basis of created and concocted documents.

¶64

9. On the contra it is the contention of defendanta that they have constructed house and out of 3.09 acres 1.18 acres already acquired by KIADB and the suit schedule property is the coparcener property of Mallappa and Erappa and after the death of Mallappa and Erappa his son Malleshappa continued to be the coparcener remained in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and after the death of Erappa, Malleshappa being only son succeeded to the coparcenary property and after the death of Malleshappa, the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. 10. During the life time of Malleshappa he constructed a house in a portion of suit survey number and defendants are residing there, the plaintiffs not at all constructed any house or houses and only to knock off the property belonged to them filed this suit and the suit itself is not maintainable.

¶65

11. Based on the above pleadings issues have been framed casting burden both on plaintiffs as well as on defendants. The crucks of the matter as according to plaintiffs they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by

¶66

7 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:6826 WP No. 3355 of 2026

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

virtue of a Gift deed and they are the absolute owners. On the contra defendants have contended that they are the absolute owners in possession and the present applicant also raised the contention that he is also having right, title and share over the suit schedule property since suit in O.S.No. 107/2013 and also O.S.No.421/2022 filed which are pending.

¶70

12. Even that contended plaintiffs though O.S.No. 107/2013 already dismissed but pendency of O.S.No.421/2022 as contended by the applicant which is pending, moreover when the applicant also claiming right, title and interest as already defendants are claiming and though plaintiffs contending that the applicant is also in collusion with the defendant No.1 to 4 if so it could be determined on merits if the applicant whether having right, title, interest or not.

¶71

13. No doubt in the present suit the crucks of the matter between the parties is with regard to the gift deed dated 15.10.1956 is concerned and though the applicant not been impleaded that it will not take away the right of the plaintiffs if he is having, furthermore the court has to determine the acquisition of title under gift deed of the year 1956, so also the right, title and interest of defendants over the suit schedule property, such being the thing even though the applicant claiming that is already filed a suit in respect of the suit schedule property but here the court not determining the share of the parties, on the other hand the court will determine only the gift deed which is a registered document dated 15.10.1956. If the plaintiffs succeed in proving the said

¶72

8 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:6826 WP No. 3355 of 2026

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

document automatically it will binding the rest and if the plaintiff failed to succeed in proving issue No.1 which also binding and the crucks in the present suit is not in respect of the share but with respect to the title.

¶76

14. Further it is the contention of plaintiffs that defendants are interfering with their possession over the suit schedule property that too by denying the title, such being the thing how the presence of the applicant is necessary and in whose absence a decree cannot be passed effectively and efficiently for which nothing has been placed, moreover in the absence of the applicant as he already approached the court for redressal and if at all he is having any share he could have carve out his remedy but in the present case the matter to be determined is in respect of registered document whether binding or not, such being the thing no sufficient grounds to allow the application.15. Moreover the provision of Order I Rule 10 CPC itself very clear and at this stage it is also relevant to mention the same:

¶77

"Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred as C.P.C.,) enables the court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence before the court is necessary in order to enable the court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions"

¶78

16. Even though Order I Rule 10 CPC provides but the applicant is neither proper nor necessary party in the existence of suit filed already in respect of his remedy, such being the thing in what way the presence of applicant in the present nature of the suit will assist the court to determine

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:6826 WP No. 3355 of 2026

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

the matter effectively and efficiently for which nothing has been proved. Hence I answer point No.1 in the Negative.

¶83

17. Point No.2:: For the above finding, I proceed to pass the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

I.A.8 under Order I Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151 CPC filed by the applicant is hereby rejected.

¶86

No order as to costs.

¶87

For further cross of PW.1 by 10.10.2025.”

¶88

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶89

As can be seen from the material on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, the trial Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the material on record in order to come to the correct conclusion that the impleading applicant/proposed defendant No.5 was neither a proper nor necessary party to the suit and he would not be entitled to seek impleadment in the present suit, especially when two other suits in O.S.Nos.107/2013 and 421/2022 were already pending before the Trial Court. It is needless to state that since the petitioner's claim is Independent title. Since the petitioners claim right, title, interest and

¶90

10 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:6826 WP No. 3355 of 2026

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

possession independent of the parties to the present suit, any judgment, decree, order, compromise etc. passed/to be passed in the present suit would not be binding upon the petitioner nor would it affect their rights and contentions in any other litigation over the suit schedule property in any other litigation including the aforesaid O.S.No.401/2021 pending before the Trial Court.

¶94

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – ( 2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.

¶95

In the result, I pass the following:

¶96

11 -

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC:6826 WP No. 3355 of 2026

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

ORDER

¶100

(i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.

¶101

(ii) It is however made clear that any compromise, order, judgment, decree etc., passed/to be passed in the present O.S.No.401/2021 would not be binding upon the petitioner nor would it affect the petitioner's right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property or his rights and contentions in O.S.Nos.107/2013 and 421/2022 or any other litigation between the parties.

¶102

(iii) All rival contentions between the parties in all litigations including the said suits are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions

¶103

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶104

BMC

¶105

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Mallappa @ Muni Mallappa v. Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallappa @ Muni Mallappa v. Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri C v Ravi Vs H N Sampaiah

R Mruthyunjaya Vs R Bhuvaneshwari

B P Ponnappa Vs Smt Anitha B P

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Smt. Nanjamma

Smt. Kamala Vs Mr. Babu Mugera

Mr Ghouse Khan Vs Smt Y Sajidunnisa