Sri. Kantharaju Vs Smt Puttathyamma Alias Puttamma

SMT. NALINA D.R. W/O. KIRAN N.G, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A. NO.261, 10^TH CROSS, 1^ST STAGE, 2^ND PHASE, MANJUNATHA NAGARA, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU -560 010

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.P.M.GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI/P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4 NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O/D:19/03/2025)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKUR, PASSED IN OS NO.20/2012, ON IA NO.NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC, FOR IMPLEADING PROPOSED DEFENDANT NO.3, PASSED IN THE ORDER SHEET, VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A. filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC in O.S.No.20/2012 dated 28.02.2025 by the III Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru, the petitioner/ defendant No.1 is before this Court.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:27283 WP No. 7905 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The defendant No.1 has filed this application seeking to implead the purchaser as proposed defendant No.3, who has purchased the property from one K.A.Jayamma and defendant No.2, who are wife and husband. It is the case of the petitioner that in the cross-examination, defendant No.2 has accepted the fact that the property is purchased from the joint family funds. Hence, the petitioner has filed this I.A. under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead the proposed defendant No.3, who is the purchaser.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that this property is not the suit schedule property and when the property is not part of the suit schedule property, question of impleading respondent No.4 herein as the proposed defendant No.3 will not arise.

¶33

In response to that, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basing on the said admission, the defendant No.2 ought to have filed an I.A. seeking counter claim in respect of this property and ought to have filed this application once his I.A. is allowed.

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27283 WP No. 7905 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

¶37

perused the entire material on record. Admittedly, as on today, the property which is purchased by the proposed party from defendant No.2 and their family is not part of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the petitioner that defendant No.2 has admitted that he has purchased this property which is sold to the proposed party from the joint family funds. Hence, he has filed the I.A. Even then, the present I.A. that is filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is not maintainable for the reason that in respect of this property, no partition is sought. Unless a partition is sought, the proposed party cannot be impleaded in this suit. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they will make appropriate application seeking counter claim. As of today, the order that is passed by the trial Court is a well considered order and it requires no interference from this Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. This Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order impugned. However, if the petitioner's application for counter claim is allowed by the trial

¶40