SRI MEHUL TEJ vs SMT RACHITHA CHETHAN
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57199
WP No. 31199 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010684982026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 31199 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MEHUL TEJ,
S/O. TEJASVI R.,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY
SMT. SUMITHA TEJASVI
2. SMT. SUMITHA TEJASVI
W/O. TEJASVI R
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1 TO 2 ARE
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.301,
SHUBAM DREAMZ, 7TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560070.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
(BY SMT. ANAGHA J PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RACHITHA CHETHAN
W/O. CHETHAN NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.65/14,
GANGADHARA NILAYA,
B M ROAD, K R PURAM,
HASSAN- 573201.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57199
WP No. 31199 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010684982026
2. SMT. SUJAYA RANGASWAMY
W/O. LATE B RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 4,
VALMIKI ROAD, V V MOHALLA,
MYSORE-570001.
3. SRI. R TEJASVI
S/O LATE B RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.301,
SHUBAM DREAMZ,
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560070.
4. SMT. BHANU
S/O LATE B RANGASWAMY,
W/O. S ANIL KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 4,
VALMIKI ROAD, V V MOHALLA,
MYSORE-570001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 06.10.2026
NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2026 IN O.S. NO. 120/2018 PASSED
BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, HASSAN, IN I.A. NO. 38 UNDER ORDER XXII RULE
4 READ WITH SECTION 151, CPC WHICH IS PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE- A, AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW I.A. NO. 3.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57199
WP No. 31199 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010684982026
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed impugning the order dated
27.08.2026 passed in O.S. No. 120/2018, whereby I.A. No. 38,
filed under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
came to be rejected.
2. The suit is one for specific performance. The application
came to be filed on the basis of the Will dated 22.11.2019, said
to have been executed by deceased defendant No. 1. Learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the legatees
fall within the extended definition of legal representatives. It is
further submitted that the other legal heirs of the deceased
have not disputed the Will, and that the challenge is raised only
by the plaintiff. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court
has erred in rejecting the application on the ground of the
genuineness of the Will, when no such challenge had been
raised. It is further contended that, if the suit is adjudicated
without bringing the legatees on record as legal representatives
of deceased defendant No. 1, the rights conferred upon them
under the Will would be defeated.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57199
WP No. 31199 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010684982026
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.
1, who is the plaintiff in the suit, submits that one of the
legatees is already on record as defendant No. 2 and that any
rights accruing under the Will can be agitated. It is further
submitted that a separate suit has been filed, wherein the
applicants can work out their rights. Learned counsel contends
that the application has been filed with the intention of delaying
the proceedings at the stage of final hearing.
4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the writ papers.
5. The suit has been instituted against defendant No. 1, B.
Rangaswamy, and others, seeking specific performance. During
the pendency of the suit, B. Rangaswamy executed a registered
Will dated 22.11.2019. The other legal heirs of deceased
defendant No. 1 have been brought on record. Defendant No.
3, who is one of the legatees under the Will, is also on record in
his independent capacity, questioning the right of deceased
defendant No. 1 to enter into an agreement to sell the ancestral
properties.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57199
WP No. 31199 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010684982026
5.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Custodian of Branches
of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique,
reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 , has categorically held
that, having regard to the definition of “legal representative”
under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a legatee
may fall within the extended definition of a legal representative.
In view of the aforesaid principle, the legatee may be
considered a legal representative of deceased defendant No. 1.
5.2 In the absence of any challenge to the genuineness of the
Will by the other legal representatives, the finding of the Trial
Court that the Will is doubtful and that its acceptance could
lead to multiplicity of proceedings, as a ground for refusing
impleadment, is without any basis. No doubt, when the
petitioners claim rights under the Will, the burden is on them to
prove its genuineness and establish their rights thereunder.
However, unless the legatees are brought on record, they
would not be in a position to establish the Will and the rights
flowing therefrom in the present proceedings. If the applicants
are not permitted to be impleaded, it may lead to multiplicity of
proceedings. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57199
WP No. 31199 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010684982026
view that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting
the application. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be
sustained.
6. It is contended that the suit is of the year 2018 and that
the present application was filed when the suit had been set
down for arguments. It is further submitted that a separate
direction may be given to the Trial Court for expeditious
disposal of the suit.
6.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the
petitioners shall not seek unnecessary adjournments before the
Trial Court.
8. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) Writ Petition is allowed .
ii) The order dated 27.08.2026 passed in
O.S.No.120/2018 is set aside.
iii) I.A.No.38 filed under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC is
allowed. The applicants are permitted to be
impleaded as additional defendants.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57199
WP No. 31199 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010684982026
iv) The Trial Court is directed to expedite the
proceedings and dispose of the suit within an outer
limit of one year from the next date of hearing
before it.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25