Dismissed¶110

Sri.Mahalingappa v. Sri.Venkatappa

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2026WP/35212/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Clubbing of suits; application under Section 151 CPC; belated clubbing application; one suit at trial stage, other posted for arguments; overlapping partition suits O.S.No.331/2012 and O.S.No.158/2016; item Nos.1, 2, 7, 10, 13 and 15; rejected impleading application; maintainability contested per judgment and decree in O.S.No.380/2006; writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227; III Addl. Senior Civil Judge Mysore; W.P. No.35212/2025 (GM-CPC); High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Vijaykumar A. Patil J.; petition dismissed (21-01-2026).

What did the court decide?

There is no error or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court in rejecting the application to club the two suits. ¶103

Sri.Mahalingappa Vs Sri.Venkatappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶110

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 05-08-2025 rejecting I.A.No.25 (application under Section 151 CPC to club O.S.No.158/2016 with O.S.No.331/2012) in O.S.No.331/2012 was liable to be quashed by way of certiorari and the clubbing application allowed.

¶87

Ratio / Principle

There is no error or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court in rejecting the application to club the two suits.

¶103

Key takeaways

No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by rejecting the clubbing application, as the petitioner is required to establish his right over the properties by adducing cogent and legally acceptable evidence.ratio¶108

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 dismissed; rejection of a clubbing application upheld. Petitioner Sri Mahalingappa, joined by respondent Nos.38 to 41, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 05-08-2025 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, in O.S.No.331/2012 rejecting I.A.No.25, an application under Section 151 CPC seeking to club O.S.No.158/2016 with O.S.No.331/2012. O.S.No.331/2012 (filed by the petitioner with respondent Nos.38 to 41) and O.S.No.158/2016 (filed by respondent Nos.13, 23, 27, 28 and 34) were both suits for partition and separate possession, the latter covering item Nos.1, 2, 7, 10, 13 and 15 of the former. The trial Court refused clubbing as belated: O.S.No.158/2016 stood posted for arguments while O.S.No.331/2012 remained at the trial stage; the plaintiffs had not commenced evidence despite more than 13 years; their impleading application in O.S.No.158/2016 had been rejected; and respondent Nos.1 to 3 disputed maintainability of O.S.No.331/2012 citing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.380/2006. Finding no error or perversity in the trial Court's findings, and holding that no prejudice would ensue since the petitioner had to establish his right by cogent and legally acceptable evidence, Vijaykumar A. Patil J. dismissed the petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3448 W.P. No.35212/2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.35212/2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MAHALINGAPPA S/O LATE SHIVANAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT. YANDAHALLI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU 570010.

¶9

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. NARAYAN, ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

SRI. VENKATAPPA S/O LATE SHIVANAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.

¶14

SMT. MANJULAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

¶15

SRI. MAHALINGA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶16

SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:3448 W.P. No.35212/2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. SHIVANNA S/O LATE SHIVANAIAH SINCE DEAD BYLR'S.

¶20

SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶21

SMT. ANUSHA D/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶22

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT. YANDAHALLI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU 570010.

¶23

SRI. L. MAHADEVU S/O LATE LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶24

SMT. REVAMMA W/O L. MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶25

SRI. UMESH S/O L. MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶26

SRI. BASAVANNA S/O LATE LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶27

SMT. MALATHI W/O BASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶28

SRI. LINGAPPA S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3448 W.P. No.35212/2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

SRI. MAHADEVASWAMY S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶32

SRI. GUNDAIAH @ NINGANNA S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶33

RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 14 ARE R/AT. LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU 570010.

¶34

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O PUTTAMADAPPA D/O SHIVANAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. SHETTARAYAKANAHALLI YELWALA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU 571130.

¶35

SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA D/O LATE MARAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.

¶36

SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O BASAVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

¶37

SRI. MANJUNATH .S S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶38

SRI. LINGARAJU .S S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶39

SRI. UMESHA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3448 W.P. No.35212/2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

RESPONDENTS NO.16 TO 19 ARE R/AT. LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK MYSYRY 570010.

¶43

SMT. PUTTALINGAMMA .B W/O PUTTAMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/A LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU 570010.

¶44

SMT. THAYAMMA W/O GURUMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT. SHETTARAYAKANAHALLI YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU 571130.

¶45

SMT. GURUMALLAPPA S/O KUNDAMALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT. SHETTARAYAKANAHALLI YELWALA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU 571130.

¶46

SMT. MAHADEVI W/O GURUMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU 570026.

¶47

SMT. JYOTHI W/O MAHESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT. ANTHARASANTHE VILLAGE H D KOTE TALUK, MYSURU 571114.

¶48

SRI. MANIKANTA S/O LATE NAGARAJU

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3448 W.P. No.35212/2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶52

SRI. BASAVANNA S/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶53

SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

¶54

RESPONDENTS NO.25 TO 27 ARE R/AT. LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU-570026.

¶55

SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O SHASHIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT. DOOR NO.84 DHAMODHAR BADAVANE ALANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBALI MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570028.

¶56

SMT. BHAGYA W/O MAHADEAVAPPA D/O GOWARAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT. YEDALLI VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBALI, MYSURUTALUK MYSURU-570008.

¶57

SMT. SUDHA W/O MAHADEAVAPPA D/O GOWARAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. ARENAHALLI VILLAGE AKKIHEBBAL HOBALI K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA-571426.

¶58

SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LINGANNA

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:3448 W.P. No.35212/2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

D/O GOWARAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU-570026.

¶63

SRI. KUMARASWAMY S/O LATE GOWARAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT. CHIKKAKANY DODDAKYA POST, JAYAPURA HOBALI MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570008 .

¶64

SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O MAHALINGAPPA D/O DODDATHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT YANDAHALLI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU-570010.

¶65

SRI. SHIVANAIAH S/O LATE SHIVANNA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.

¶66

SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE SHIVANAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.

¶67

SRI. LINGNAPPA @ NAGESH S/O LATE SHIVANAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT. LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURUTALUK MYSURU-570026.

¶68

SRI. RAJENDRA SHANKARLAL THAKKER S/O SHANKARLAL THAKKER R/AT. DOOR NO.103, 1ST FLOOR SANGEETHA ENCLAVE, NEHRU BLOCK MULUNDWEST, MUMBAI-400080.

¶69

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:3448 W.P. No.35212/2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

SRI. C. SATHISH S/O LATE C.A. SAMPANGI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT. DOOR NO.743/4 SOJI STREET, 2ND CROSS LASHKARMOHALLA, MYSURU-570004.

¶72

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSURU-570022.

¶73

SRI. LINGANNA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.

¶74

SMT. GANGAMANI W/O LATE LINGANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.

¶75

SRI. CHANDRA S/O LATE LINGANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶76

RESPONDENTS NO.38 & 39 ARE R/AT. NO.45, MARIGUDI STREET YANDALLI, LALITHADRIPURA MYSURU 570 028.

¶77

SMT. MAMATHA D/O LATE LINGANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT. NO.123, BHUGATHAHALLI VAJAMANGALA POST VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU 570028.

¶78

SRI. MAHADEV S/O LATE SHIVANAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT. YANDAHALLI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU 570010.

¶79

…RESPONDENTS

¶80

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:3448 W.P. No.35212/2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION OF SIMILAR NATURE TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05-08-2025 ON I.A.NO.25 (I.E., CLUBBING APPLICATION) PASSED IN O.S.NO.331/2012, ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MYSORE, AT ANNEXURE F AND IN TURN ALLOW THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC (IA NO.25) I.E., CLUBBING APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE-D & ETC.

¶83

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

¶84

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

¶85

ORAL ORDER

¶86

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶87

"(i) Issue a Writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction of similar nature to quash/set aside the order dated 05-08-2025 on I.A.No.25 (i.e., Clubbing Application) passed in O.S.No.331/2012, on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Mysore, at Annexure 'F' and in turn allow the application under section 151 of CPC (IA No.25) i.e., Clubbing Application at Annexure-D."

¶88

Sri.Sunil S.Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with respondent Nos.38 to 41 have filed suit in

¶89

O.S.No.331/2012 for partition and separate possession,

¶90

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:3448 W.P. No.35212/2025

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

which is pending consideration before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru. It is submitted that respondent Nos.13, 23, 27, 28 and 34 have also filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.158/2016 for the properties in item Nos.1, 2, 7, 10, 13 and 15 of the suit filed by the petitioner and the said suit was filed against respondent Nos.7, 10, 20 and 21 in the petition. In the suit filed by the petitioner i.e., O.S.No.331/2012, an application is filed to club O.S.No.158/2016 along with O.S.No.331/2012, which application came to be rejected by the trial Court on erroneous finding. It is further submitted that the subject matter in the suits is one and the same and the parties to the proceedings are largely from the same family and if O.S.No.158/2016, which is not properly defended by the defendants therein, is allowed to proceed, great prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. Hence, he seeks to allow

¶93

the petition.

¶94

NC: 2026:KHC:3448 W.P. No.35212/2025

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶97

counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶98

The petitioner along with respondent Nos.38 to 41 have filed the suit in O.S.No.331/2012 for the relief of partition and separate possession. It is to be noticed that respondent Nos.13, 23, 27, 28 and 34 have also filed O.S.No.158/2016 for partition and separate possession. It is stated that the subject matter of the properties in O.S.No.158/2016 are item Nos.1, 2, 7, 10, 13 and 15 of the earlier suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.331/2012. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking to club both the suits, which came to be rejected by the trial Court under the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 by recording a finding that the application is filed at the belated stage when the suit O.S.No.158/2016 was proceeded further and posted for arguments, but suit in O.S.No.331/2012 is at the trial stage.

¶99

11 -

¶100

NC: 2026:KHC:3448 W.P. No.35212/2025

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

It is to be noticed that the trial Court, while

¶103

rejecting the application, has assigned detailed reasons with regard to suit filed by the parties in O.S.No.158/2016 and the stage of the suit. The trial Court has also taken note of fact that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 - defendants in O.S.No.331/2012 have taken a specific contention that the suit filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.380/2006 and recorded the finding that the suits cannot be clubbed. It is to be noticed that the trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the suit filed by the petitioner is of the year 2012 and more than 13 years has been lapsed and the plaintiffs have not commenced their evidence and their impleading application in O.S.No.158/2016 was also rejected and taking note of the same, the trial Court rejected the application for clubbing of the suits. I do not find any error or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court.

¶104

12 -

¶105

NC: 2026:KHC:3448 W.P. No.35212/2025

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

It is also to be noticed that no prejudice would

¶108

be caused to the petitioner by rejecting the present application as the petitioner is required to establish his right over the properties by adducing cogent and legally acceptable evidence to prove the case.

¶109

With the above observations, this petition is

¶110

dismissed .

¶111

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶112

BSR

¶113

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri.Mahalingappa v. Sri.Venkatappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Mahalingappa v. Sri.Venkatappa

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

Smt Indira Vs K Shrinivas Rao

Mr Sreejith Purushothaman Vs Sri B L Kodanda Ramaiah

Beerappa Vs Jagadhish

Ramesh G Sheit Vs K.S. Manjunatha

Shri M K Sumanth Urs Vs Shri Lokesh

Mr. Krishnappa Vs Sri. Chikka Sonnappa