Allowed¶94

Mrs Rudranamma v. Mr. Marulaiah

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2026WP/6177/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition GM-CPC; impleadment of legal heirs as proper parties; Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure; necessary party versus proper party; widow and daughters of deceased co-sharer; declaration of title and permanent injunction suit O.S.No.235/2012; registered sale deed 30.07.1958; revenue records and RTC reflecting legal heir; Trial Court order set aside; I.A.No.18 allowed; Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Chikkanayakanahalli; ex-parte respondents; WP No. 6177 of 2022.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Impugned Order dated 21.02.2022 set aside; I.A.No.18 (impleadment of petitioners) allowed; parties to appear before the learned Trial Court on the date already fixed; all pending applications stand closed. ¶94

Mrs Rudranamma Vs Mr. Marulaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶94

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners/applicants — the widow and daughters (legal heirs) of late Sri.Renukaradhya — are necessary or proper parties to O.S.No.235/2012, and whether the Trial Court correctly dismissed their impleadment application (I.A.No.18).

¶76

Court's answer

Although the petitioners/applicants may not be necessary parties, given the fact that they have rights in the suit schedule property, they are deemed to be proper parties in the petition.

¶88

Ratio / Principle

In view whereof, the writ petition is disposed of, the Impugned Order dated 21.02.2022 is set aside, and I.A.No.18 is allowed; the parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on the date already fixed, and all pending applications stand closed.

¶94

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.) — Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against dismissal, by order dated 21.02.2022 of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkanayakanahalli in O.S.No.235/2012, of I.A.No.18 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment of the petitioners — the widow and two daughters of late Sri.Renukaradhya — in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction brought by his son (respondent No.8) against adjacent landowners (respondent Nos.1 to 7). The Trial Court had found the applicants neither necessary nor proper parties. Noting that the suit schedule property had been purchased by petitioner No.1's father-in-law under registered sale deed dated 30.07.1958, allotted to her husband's share on partition, and that revenue records/RTC reflect petitioner No.1's name as legal heir after her husband's death in 2012, the Court held that while the petitioners may not be necessary parties, having rights in the suit schedule property they are proper parties. The Impugned Order was set aside, I.A.No.18 was allowed, and the parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on the date already fixed. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 were proceeded with ex-parte (service refused); notice to respondent No.7 was dispensed with vide order dated 09.01.2026.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1273 WP No. 6177 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 6177 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MRS. RUDRANAMMA W/O LATE RENUKARADHYA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶10

R/A NADUVANAHALLI VILLAGE HANDANAKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572214.

¶11

N R PAVITHRA D/O LATE RENUKARADHYA W/O MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE KANDIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572214.

¶12

N R DIVYA D/O LATE RENUKARADHYA W/O RUDRASWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A PEELAPURA, KASABA HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577515.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. AJIT P B., ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:1273 WP No. 6177 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

MR. MARULAIAH S/O AJJANNA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶20

MR SHEKARAIAH S/O MARULAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶21

ESHWARAIAH S/O MARULAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶22

GANGADHARA S/O SHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶23

OMKARMURTHY S/O KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶24

KAMMSAGARAIAH S/O KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶25

NINGARAJU S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶26

MR. N R SIDDESHKUMAR S/O LATE RENUKARADHYA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶27

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NADUVANAHALLI VILLAGE HANDANAKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572214.

¶28

(R8 SERVED;

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1273 WP No. 6177 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

VIDE ORDER DATED 09.01.2026, NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶33

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 21.02.2022ON I.A.NO.18 IN O.S.NO.235/2012 ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI AND ETC.,

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The present petition has been filed under Article 227

¶38

of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge an order dated 21.02.2022 passed in O.S.No.235/2012 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkanayakanahalli, (herein referred as 'Impugned Order'). By the Impugned Order, I.A.No.18 filed by the petitioners/applicants has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court with a finding that the petitioners/applicants are neither necessary nor proper party and that priority has to be given to old matters.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:1273 WP No. 6177 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that service of notice to respondent No.7 be dispensed with since service has already been taken out three times. Notice to respondent No.7 is dispensed with.

¶43

The record reflects that the respondent Nos.1 to 8 are residing at the same address, in view of the aforesaid fact, none has appeared.

¶44

In view of the fact that stay of proceedings was granted by this Court on 22.03.2022, this Court deems it expedite to hear and decide the petition today.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants submits that the plaintiff/respondent No.8 had filed the suit against the respondent Nos.1 to 7/defendants for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction.

¶46

It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent No.8that the

¶47

suit schedule property was purchased by applicant No.1's/petitioner No.1father-in-law Yeduveeraiah under

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:1273 WP No. 6177 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

the registered sale deed dated 30.07.1958. After the death of Mr.Yeduveeraiah, her husband and his brothers partitioned the joint family properties, and the suit schedule property was allotted to the petitioner No.1's

¶52

husband's share. It is the case of the

¶53

petitioners/applicants that since husband of petitioner No.1/Applicant No.1died in 2012 due to old age ailments, all revenue documents with respect to the suit schedule property were changed to the name of the applicantNo.1/petitioner No.1 under Pavathivarsu. It has further been stated that the petitioners/applicants being the mother and the daughters as well as the plaintiff/respondent No.8 being the son of late

¶54

Sri.Renukaradhya are the only legal heirs of the deceased. However, the suit was filed without impleading the petitioners/applicants as parties. It is thus contented that since the applicants have a share in the suit schedule property, being the legal representatives of Sri.Renukaradhya in addition to the plaintiff/respondent

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:1273 WP No. 6177 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

No.8, the presence of the petitioners/applicants are necessary as they are proper parties.

¶59

The respondent Nos.1 to 7/defendant Nos.1 to 7 in the original suit filed an objection contesting the application. It was stated therein that the

¶60

petitioners/applicants are not necessary or proper parties.

¶61

The learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants has submitted that the petitioners/applicants are the wife and the two daughters of late Sri.Renukaradhya. It is not disputed between the parties that late Sri.Renukaradhya was entitled to share in the suit schedule property and thus, his son the plaintiff/respondent No.8 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. He further submits that in fact, after the death of the plaintiff's/respondent No.8's father and the applicant No.1/petitioner No.1's

¶62

husband, the revenue records were amended to include the name of the applicant No.1/petitioner No.1 as the legal heir. He further submits that the petitioners are the class 1

¶63

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:1273 WP No. 6177 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

legal heirs of late Sri.Renukaradhya and thus, have rights

¶67

in the suit schedule property.

¶68

As stated above, the service to respondent Nos.1 to 7/defendants has been refused. The record reflects that the respondents are all residing in the same premise and are represented by the same lawyer. Thus, the respondent Nos.1 to 7/defendants are proceeded with ex-parte.

¶69

The learned Trial Court in the impugned order given a finding that there is no conflict of interest between the plaintiff/respondent No.8 and the petitioners/applicants and that the respondent Nos.1 to 7/defendants being adjacent landowners even though there is a kharab road in their land are making efforts to interfere in their peaceful possession of the plaintiff/respondent No.8. Although the respondent Nos.1 to 7/defendantsand plaintiff/respondent No.8 have objected to the application, no ground for objection has been set out therein. The only ground that is stated in the objections at paragraph No.6 is that the

¶70

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:1273 WP No. 6177 of 2022

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

applicants/petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. The relevant extract of objection to application filed by the defendants/respondent Nos.1 to 7 are set out below:-

¶74

"4. It is humbly submitted that the applicants and the Plaintiff by closing hands with each other have filed the instant false vexatious suit liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶75

5. It is humbly submitted that the averments of the written statement, the documentary and oral evidence produced by the Defendants may kindly be pleased to read as part and parcel of this objections.

¶76

6. It is humbly submitted that the applicants are not the necessary or proper parties to the suit. Hence the instant application is not maintainable in law and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶77

7. It is humbly submitted that the Plaintiff and the applicants with a malafide intention to filing up the lacunas and the material defects in the suit have filed the instant application at the fag end of the case. Hence the instant application is not maintainable in law and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs."

¶78

[Emphasis supplied]

¶79

It is not disputed by the respondent Nos.1 to

¶80

7/defendants and plaintiff/respondent No.8in the

¶81

objections that the petitioners/applicants are related to or the legal representatives of deceased Sri.Renukaradhya, to

¶82

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:1273 WP No. 6177 of 2022

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

whom the suit schedule property belongs. The RTC record also reflects the name of the petitioner No.1/applicant No.1 – Smt.Rudranamma. The learned Trial Court has premised its finding on the fact that there is no conflict of interest between the plaintiff/respondent No.8 and the petitioners/applicants and thus, there is no dispute with the relationship between the plaintiff/respondent No.8 and the petitioners/applicants and that a suit can be adjudicated effectively even without the

¶85

petitioners/applicants.

¶86

The learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants has

¶87

however submitted that once the suit has been filed in respect of rights for the suit schedule property and since the petitioners/applicants are also part owners of the suit schedule property, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff/respondent No.8 to make them a party. However, since this was not done, the application for impleadment was filed. No doubt, the petitioners/applicants may not be

¶88

a necessary party but given the fact that they have right

¶89

10 -

¶90

NC: 2026:KHC:1273 WP No. 6177 of 2022

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

in the suit schedule property, they would be deemed to be

¶93

proper parties in the petition.

¶94

In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of . The Impugned Order is set aside . The application - I.A.No.18 is allowed. The parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on the date already fixed.

¶95

All pending applications stand closed.

¶96

Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶97

MH/-

¶98

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Dismissal of I.A.No.18 filed by the petitioners/applicants (impleadment application under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC) in O.S.No.235/2012, with a finding that the petitioners/applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties and that priority has to be given to old matters.¶38
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkanayakanahalli · 21.02.2022
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.235/2012 instituted by the plaintiff/respondent No.8 (son of late Sri.Renukaradhya) against respondent Nos.1 to 7/defendant Nos.1 to 7 for declaration of title and permanent injunction.¶45
Prior proceeding
As per the plaintiffs'/applicants' case, the suit schedule property was purchased by petitioner No.1's father-in-law Yeduveeraiah under a registered sale deed dated 30.07.1958.¶47
Prior proceeding
After the death of Mr.Yeduveeraiah, the joint family properties were partitioned and the suit schedule property was allotted to petitioner No.1's husband's share.¶51
Prior proceeding
Petitioner No.1's husband (late Sri.Renukaradhya) died in 2012 due to old age ailments.¶53
Prior proceeding
Revenue records were amended to include petitioner No.1 as legal heir after the death of her husband; the RTC record also reflects the name of petitioner No.1 – Smt.Rudranamma.¶62
Prior proceeding
The petitioners/applicants assert they are legal heirs of late Sri.Renukaradhya and that the suit was filed without impleading them as parties.¶54
Prior proceeding
Respondent Nos.1 to 7/defendant Nos.1 to 7 filed objections contesting I.A.No.18, stating the applicants are not necessary or proper parties.¶60
Prior proceeding
Service on respondent Nos.1 to 7 was refused; they were proceeded with ex-parte in the writ petition. Notice to respondent No.7 was dispensed with vide order dated 09.01.2026.¶69
Prior proceeding
Stay of proceedings had been granted by the High Court on 22.03.2022; the Court accordingly heard and decided the petition on 09.01.2026.¶44

Mrs Rudranamma v. Mr. Marulaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Rudranamma v. Mr. Marulaiah

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

Sri P v Jagadeesh Shastry Vs Sri Damji D Patel

Sri T K Poonacha Vs Sri K Kale Gowda

Sri K Kalegowda Vs T K Poonacha

Sri C T Purushothama Reddy Vs Sri Muniswami Reddy

Smt M C Rohini Vs Sri C Manjunath

Bibijaan Vs Mohammed Hussain