SUSHMITA vs PARASAPPA @ PARASHURAM
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11181
WP No. 200394 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030020672025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 200394 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SUSHMITA
D/O. PARASAPPA @ PARASHURAM PUJARI,
AGE : 11 YEARS,
OCC : STUDENT,
MINOR REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E.,
MOTHER SMT. SANGEETA
W/O. PARASAPPA @ PARASHURAM PUJARI,
AGE : 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SURAGIHALLI,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 215.
2. SANGEETA
W/O. PARASAPPA @ PARASHURAM PUJARI,
AGE : 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SURAGIHALLI,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 215.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI YASHAS S.DIKSHIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARASAPPA @ PARASHURAM
S/O. TEJAPPA PUJARI,
Digitally signed
by
SHIVALEELA
D UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11181
WP No. 200394 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030020672025
AGE : 40 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SURAGIHALLI,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 215.
2. TEJAPPA
S/O. KANNAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SURAGIHALLI,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 215.
3. SHANMUKHAWWA
W/O. TEJAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC :H.H.WORK,
R/O: SURAGIHALLI,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 215.
4. KENCHAPPA
S/O. TEJAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC :AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SURAGIHALLI,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 215.
5. KASHIBAI
D/O. TEJAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC :H.H.WORK,
C/O TEJAPPA
S/O KANNAPPA PUJARI,
R/O: SURAGIHALLI,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 215.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11181
WP No. 200394 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030020672025
6. INDRABAI
D/O. TEJAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCC :H.H.WORK,
C/O TEJAPPA
S/O KANNAPPA PUJARI,
R/O: SURAGIHALLI,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 215.
7. SMT. PARVATI
W/O. PARASAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SURAGIHALLI,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 215.
8. KAVITA @ PREETI
D/O. PARASAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SURAGIHALLI,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 215.
9. KUMARI SHEELAVANTI
D/O. PARASAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SURAGIHALLI,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 215.
10. KUMARI LAXMI
D/O. PARASAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SURAGIHALLI,
TQ: SINDAGI,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11181
WP No. 200394 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030020672025
DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 215.
11. KUMARI BORAMMA PARASAPPA PUJARI
AGED ABOUT 05 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SURAGIHALLI,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 215.
RESPONDENT NO.9 TO 11 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED THROUGH
NEXT FRIEND NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. PARVATI W/O PARASAPPA
I.E., RESPONDENT NO.7 HEREIN.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R7 AND R8;
V/O DATED 24.09.2026 NOTICE TO R5 AND R6 ARE
DISPENSED WITH;
V/O DATED 07.10.2026 R7 TO R11 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF
DECEASED R1;
NOTICE TO AGAINST R5 AND R6 IS DISPENSED WITH;
NOTICE R1 TO R4 – SERVED BUT UN-REPRESENTED;
R9, R10 AND R11 ARE MINOR R/BY NATURAL MOTHER R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
MORE SO IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 18-12-2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC SINDAGI IN OS NO. 245/2022 WHICH AT
ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. OR PASS ANY
OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO
GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11181
WP No. 200394 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030020672025
ORAL ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“I) It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly
be pleased to issue a writ more so in the nature of
certiorari quashing the order dated 18.12.2024
passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi,
in O.S.No.245/2022 which at Annexure-E, in the
interest of justice.
Or.
II) Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case,
in the interest of justice.”
2. The Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.245/2022
th
seeking partition and separate possession of a 1/6 share
in the suit property, as well as mesne profits, etc.
3. The Respondents/Defendants filed a written
statement refuting the averments in the plaint.
4. The Respondent Nos.7 to 11 herein filed an
application in IA No. V under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to
implead themselves in O.S.No.245/2022 and to come on
record as Defendant Nos.7 to 11.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11181
WP No. 200394 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030020672025
5. The Trial Court favourably considered the application
filed by the Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 herein by order dated
18.12.2024 and, having allowed the application, permitted
the Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 to come on record as
Defendant Nos. 7 to 11 in the proceedings.
6. The present Writ Petition impugns the order passed
by the Trial Court on 18.12.2024 allowing IA No. V filed by
the Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 herein.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that
the Trial Court has erred in allowing the application
permitting the Respondent Nos.7 to 11 herein to come on
record in the original suit proceedings inasmuch as they
have no semblance of right in the suit schedule property
and they are in no way concerned with the suit schedule
property. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff No.2 is
the legally wedded wife of Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff
No.1 is the daughter of Defendant No.1. It is further
argued that the impleading applicants are strangers to the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11181
WP No. 200394 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030020672025
family and as such, the application filed by them seeking
to come on record as Defendant Nos.7 to 11 ought not to
have been considered by the Trial Court. Accordingly,
learned counsel submits that the order dated 18.12.2024
passed by the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with.
8. Per contra , learned counsel for Respondent Nos.7 to
11 herein would contend that they are necessary parties to
the partition suit preferred by the petitioners herein. It is
submitted by the learned counsel that impleading
applicant No.1, i.e., Respondent No.7, is the legally
wedded wife of Defendant No.1 and the other three
applicants, being the children of Defendant No.1, are
entitled to come on record, and they also have a share in
the suit schedule property. Learned counsel asserts that,
in their absence, the suit cannot be heard and decided.
Accordingly, learned counsel seeks dismissal of the Writ
Petition without interfering with the order passed by the
Trial Court on IA No. V.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11181
WP No. 200394 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030020672025
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and perused the material documents placed on record.
10. The petitioners filed the suit for partition and
separate possession of the suit property, being their 1/6th
share, as well as mesne profits. The petitioners-Plaintiffs
claim that they are the family of Defendant No.1 and,
accordingly, have filed the suit seeking partition and
separate possession.
11. The impleading applicants also sought to come on
record contending that the impleading applicant No.1 is
the legally wedded wife of Defendant No.1 and other
applicants are the children of Defendant No.1. Though the
Plaintiffs-petitioners have filed objections opposing the
application, denying the relationship of the impleading
applicants with the family of Defendant No.1, it is
pertinent to consider that Defendant No.1 has not denied
or opposed the application by filing the objections.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11181
WP No. 200394 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030020672025
12. The Trial Court, considering the contents of the
application and the claim put forth by the impleading
applicants and regard being had to the issue relating to
who is the legally wedded wife of Defendant No.1 cannot
be adjudicated at this stage, has rightly allowed the
application permitting the impleading applicants-
Respondent Nos.7 to 11, to come on record as Defendant
Nos.7 to 11 in the original suit. The Trial Court has
recorded its findings at para No.6 as a reason for allowing
the impleading application.
13. It is imperative to consider that merely allowing the
impleading application to come on record would not, in
any manner, prejudice the petitioners-Plaintiffs herein. In
other words, allowing the impleading application would
not, ipso facto , decide the applicants' entitlement to a
share in the property. Whether the impleading applicants
are related to Defendant No.1 or otherwise must be
considered and adjudicated by the Trial Court at an
appropriate stage, and the Trial Court will also consider
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11181
WP No. 200394 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030020672025
their entitlement to partition and separate position after a
full-fledged trial.
14. It is also significant to consider that the application
filed by the impleading applicants - Respondent Nos.7 to
11 herein has also not been opposed by the Defendant
No.1. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the
order passed by the Trial Court, in the opinion of this
Court, is justified and it does not call for interference.
15. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
view that the petition deserves to be dismissed as having
no merit. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
dismissed
The Writ Petition is hereby .
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
MSR,SDU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22