Sri M Muddappa Vs Smt Jayamma

SMT. DAKSHAYANI W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AND D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT TABSEHALLI VILLAGE DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶36

SMT. TULASAMMA.N W/O H.V.GOPAL AND D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT HUVANAYAKANAHALLI, BANDEKODIGEHALLI POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 149.

¶37

SRI P.T.RAGHU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SON OF SMT. NARASAMMA, NO.20/2, MILL ROAD, AKKIPET CROSS, BENGALURU.

¶38

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9001 WP No. 37372 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

SMT. P.T.NALINI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF SMT. NARASAMMA, NO.20/2, MILL ROAD, AKKIPET CROSS, BENGALURU.

¶41

SMT. P.T.ANURADHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF SMT. NARASAMMA, NO.20/2, MILL ROAD, NO.4AKKIPET CROSS, BENGALURU – 560 053.

¶42

SMT. P.T.MEENA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF SMT. NARASAMMA, NO.20/2, MILL ROAD, AKKIPET CROSS, BENGALURU – 560 053.

¶43

SRI YELLAPPA, S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NANDAGOWDA-GOLLAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 560 077.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI. SUNIL.S.RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-6 SRI. V. CHANDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-11)

¶46

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ON IA UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 (2) OF CPC DATED 27.11.2025 VIDE ANNX-A PASSED BY THE LD. 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN RA NO. 208/2019 AND THEREBY DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION.

¶47

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

¶48

4 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:9001 WP No. 37372 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

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

¶52

ORAL ORDER

¶53

This petition by respondent No.1(b) to 1(e) in R.A.No.208/2019 on the file of I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is directed against the impugned order dated 27.11.2025, whereby the impleadment application filed by respondents 1 to 6 herein / impleading applicants was allowed by the 1^st appellate court.

¶54

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶55

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners herein and respondent No. 11 herein are the legal representatives of late Muniswamappa, who instituted a suit in O.S.No.805/1997 against respondents 7 to 10 and one Smt.Naraasamma for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement dated 03.03.1995 in relation to suit schedule immovable property and for other reliefs. By judgment and decree dated 24.10.2019, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and

¶56

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9001 WP No. 37372 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

decree, respondents 7 to 10 who are the defendants in the suit preferred an appeal which is now pending in R.A.No.208/2019 before the 1^st appellate court. During the pendency of the appeal, respondents 1 to 6 herein filed the instant application seeking impleadment on the ground that they are both proper and necessary parties to the appeal. The said application having been opposed by the petitioners, the 1^st appellate court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application, aggrieved by which, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶59

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides i.e., the petitioners on one hand and respondents 1 to 6 on the other in support of their respective claims over the suit schedule property, having regard to the fact that the said contentions as well as the rival contentions between the appellants in the appeal and the petitioners who are the respondents in the appeal would necessarily have to be decided at the time of final disposal of the appeal, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to give a quietus to the dispute between the petitioners, respondents 1 to 6 and respondents 7 to 10, without expressing

¶60

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:9001 WP No. 37372 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to modify the impugned order and allow the application for impleadment filed by the respondents 1 to 6 by leaving open all contentions between all parties to be decided at the time of final disposal of the appeal within a stipulated time frame and in accordance with law.

¶63

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) Petition is hereby disposed of.

¶66

(ii) The impugned order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the 1^st appellate court in R.A.No.208/2019 is hereby modified.

¶67

(iii) The impleadment application filed by respondents 1 to 6/impleading applicants dated 25.03.2021 is hereby allowed, subject to the condition that all rival contentions between the petitioners, respondents 1 to 6 and respondents 7 to 11 to be decided by the 1^st appellate court in accordance with law.

¶68

(iv) The 1^st appellate court is directed to dispose of the appeal after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all parties in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶69