GANGAPPA vs SMT. BHAGAMMA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11352
WP No. 201312 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030033472026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 201312 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
GANGAPPA
S/O GURAPPA CHINCHOLLI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O AHERI, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586123
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHRUVA P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. BHAGAMMA
W/O BASAPPA WADIGERI,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O AHERI, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586123.
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA D
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. RAVI
S/O BASANNA WADIGERI (CHINCHOLLI),
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O AHERI, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586123.
3. SRI. MALLAPPA
S/O GURAPPA WADIGERI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O AHERI, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586123.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11352
WP No. 201312 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030033472026
4. SMT. GANGABAI
D/O GURAPPA WADIGERI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O AHERI, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586123.
5. SMT. SUGALABAI
W/O GURAPPA CHINCHOLLI,
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O AHERI, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586123.
6. CHANDAMMA
W/O DEVENDRA BADIGER,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O YEDRAMI, TQ. YEDRAMI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585-325.
7. SHRIDEVI W/O LAKSHMAN DASHWANT,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KAKKALAMELI, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA 586-123.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. R. KADLOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7;
V/O DATED 24.03.2026, NOTICE TO R1 TO R5 ARE D/W)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING ANNEXURE-L, VIZ, IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
25.10.2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SINDAGI AT SINDAGI ALLOWING IA NO.10, U/O 1 RULE 10(A)
OF THE CPC, 1908 RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7 HEREIN IN OS
NO.18/2022 AND FURTHER DISMISS THE SAID IA NO.10 IN OS
NO.18/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, SINDAGI AT SINDAGI AND ETC.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11352
WP No. 201312 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030033472026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN “B” GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
ORAL ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“This Writ Petition is filed under article 227 of the
constitution of india, praying to a) Issue a Writ, Order
or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing
ANNEXURE-L, viz, impugned Order dated 25.10.2025
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi at
Sindagi allowing IA No.10, U/o 1 rule 10(a) of the CPC,
1908 Respondents No.6 and 7 herein in OS
No.18/2022 and further dismiss the said IA No.10 in
OS No.18/2022 on the file of the senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Sindagi at Sindagi, b) Such further or other
reliefs be granted to which the Petitioner would be
entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner is the
Plaintiff in O.S.No.18/2022 and the said suit is filed for the
relief of partition and separate possession. During the
pendency of the aforementioned suit, Respondents Nos. 6
and 7 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(a) of the
Code of Civil Procedure seeking to come on record as
additional Defendants Nos. 6 and 7.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11352
WP No. 201312 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030033472026
3. In support of the Application, Respondents
Nos.6 and 7, being the applicants, have contended that
they also belong to the family of Mallappa and the
applicants are also entitled to partition and separate
possession. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have further stated
that they have filed O.S.No.368/2022 against the
Petitioner/Plaintiff herein seeking partition and separate
possession. The said suit is pending, and the
Petitioner/Plaintiff is one of the Defendants therein. The
Impleading Applicants assert that, since the suit property
is identical in both suits and the parties belong to
Mallappa’s family, they should be allowed to come on
record.
4. The Trial Court, by the order dated 25.10.2025,
has allowed the Application filed by the Impleading
Applicants on the ground that the relationship between the
parties has to be considered during the course of the trial
and not at the stage of consideration of the application
and such contentions cannot be adjudicated. Further, the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11352
WP No. 201312 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030033472026
Trial Court has also observed that allowing the impleading
applicants to come on record as additional Defendant
Nos.6 and 7 would not in any way prejudice the rights of
the parties. Based on this observation, the Trial Court
allowed the application filed by Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
This order of the Trial Court is impugned in the present
writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Dhruva P
Ambekar, appearing for the Petitioner and the learned
counsel Sri. S. R. Kadloor, appearing for Respondent Nos.6
and 7, and perused the materials on record.
6. The Petitioner/Plaintiff in the Memorandum of
Plaint has provided the genealogical tree of Mallappa
Chincholi and the Petitioner/Plaintiff claims to be the son
of Gurappa, who is the son of Mallappa Chincholi. The
genealogical tree also shows that Mallappa Chincholi had
three sons named Chandramappa, Shivarai, and Gurappa.
As to the application filed by the impleading applicants,

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11352
WP No. 201312 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030033472026
i.e., Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, the family tree produced
along with the Applications also refers to the same
Mallappa and Gurappa, Chandramappa and Shivarai. In
other words, prima facie, both the genealogical trees tally
with each other. However, whether the impleading
applicants are family members of Mallappa Chincholi or
otherwise, must be adjudicated by the Trial Court after
conducting a full-fledged trial or recording evidence.
7. At this stage, those aspects cannot be
considered. However, the Trial Court, being satisfied with
the application filed and the averments made therein,
rightly allowed the application, thereby permitting the
impleading applicants to come on record as additional
Defendant Nos. 6 and 7, which cannot be found fault with.
The Trial Court's order allowing the application for
impleading, ipso facto, cannot be construed as an
adjudication of the suit on its merits or of the status of the
parties. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no
error or illegality in the order allowing the Application by

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11352
WP No. 201312 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030033472026
the Trial Court, permitting the impleading applicants, i.e.,
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, to come on record as additional
Defendant Nos. 6 and 7. In light of the observations made
hereinabove, the Plaintiff’s present Writ Petition is without
merit and deserves dismissal. Hence, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.
ii. It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits or
demerits of the suits filed by the respective
parties, and the Trial Court is required to
dispose of the suit without being influenced
by the observations made in the body of
the order.
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
AMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
CT:SI