SMT. RATHNAMMA, vs SMT.CHANDRAMMA,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58622
WP No. 32081 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010701772026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 32081 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RATHNAMMA,
W/O KRISHNAPPA,
D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT BEHIND KANTHAMMA
GOVINDAPPA KALYANA MANTAPA,
WHITE FIELD ROAD, B. NARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 016
(PETITIONER SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT
CLAIMED)
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY G..,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.CHANDRAMMA, W/O LATE SRINIVAS,
AGED: MAJOR,
2. DIVYA, D/O LATE SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58622
WP No. 32081 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010701772026
3. DILIP. S/O LATE SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT KATAMNALLURU
VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST
TALUK, BENGALURU-560049.
DEVARAJ, S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
SMT.K.D.LEENA, W/O RAMESH KUMAR,
D/O LATE DEVARAJ,
AGED: MAJOR
R/AT NO.5TH CROSS ROAD, NEAR CAMBRIDGE COLLEGE
ROAD, JAI BHUVANESHWARI LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM,
BENGALURU-560036.
5. ANIL KUMAR, S/O LATE DEVARAJ,
AGED: MAJOR
6. SMT.SARALA, W/O LATE MANJUNATH,
AGED: MAJOR
7.
BABY HAEMITHA, D/O LATE MANJUNATH,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER4(c) AS GUARDIAN,
8.
KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED: MAJOR
9. NALINI, W/O S.DILIP KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 9 ARE R/AT: KATAMNALLURU
4.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58622
WP No. 32081 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010701772026
VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560049.
10. VIDYA SHREE, D/O V.RAMESH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
11. LOCHAL R, D/O V.RAMESH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.10 & 11 ARE R/AT NO. 204, 1ST
CROSS KUMBAR STREET, K.R.PURAM,
BENGALURU-560036.
12. SAHANA P.S, W/O ANIL KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
13. MASTER A.ESHAN GOWDA, S/O ANIL KUMAR D,
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, SINCE MINOR BY HIS FATHER AS
NATURAL GUARDIAN ANIL KUMAR D,
RESPONDENTS NO.12 & 13 ARE R/AT KATAMNALLURU
VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560049
14. SHAKUNTHALA M. FIRST W/O KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED MAJOR,
15. NIRUPA L. D/O KRISHNA MURTHY T & SHAKUNTHALA M,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
16. TARUNYA K. D/O KRISHNA MURTHY T AND
SHAKUNTHALA M, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
17. JYOTHI LAKSHMI.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58622
WP No. 32081 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010701772026
SECOND W/O KRISHNA MURTHY T
AGED MAJOR,
18. SADANA K.
D/O KRISHNA MURTHY T AND
JYOTHI LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
19. POORNIMA K.
D/O KRISHNA MURTHY T AND JYOTHI LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.14 TO 19 ARE R/AT KATAMNALLURU
VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-56004.
20. M/S SLV GREEN VENTURES,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.23,
FLAT NO.403, SLV BHANDHAVYA HOMES, PRAKRUTHI
TOWNSHIP, 3RD BLOCK, BABUSAPALYA, KALYAN NAGAR
POST, BENGALURU-560043.
21. G. VENKATESH, S/O G.RAMA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
22. G.K.RAJA GOPAL NAIDU, S/O G.KRISHNAM NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
BOTH PARTNERS OF M/S SLV GREEN VENTURES, NO.23,
FLAT NO.403, SLV BHANDHAVYA HOMES, PRAKRUTHI
TOWNSHIP, 3RD BLOCK, BABUSAPALYA,
KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560043
…RESPONDENTS
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58622
WP No. 32081 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010701772026
(V/O DATED 15/10/26 NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS ARE
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 15.11.2025 IN O S NO. 753/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU ON I A NO. 9 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND IA NO.
9 BE ALLOWED BY PRAYED FOR ANY OTHER WRIT OR
DIRECTION TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
The present petition assails the order dated 15.11.2025
in O.S. No.753/2019, whereby I.A. No. 9, filed under Order I
Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,
‘CPC’), seeking to implead proposed defendant Nos. 6 to 19,
came to be rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the suit was instituted for partition and separate
possession. The proposed defendants are the sons, daughters,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58622
WP No. 32081 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010701772026
grandchildren and daughters-in-law of defendant Nos. 4 and 5.
It is further submitted that the proposed defendants have
entered into a Joint Development Agreement in respect of the
suit schedule property with defendant Nos. 17, 18 and 19. It is
contended that the proposed defendants are necessary parties
to the suit. Learned counsel further submits that, although the
proposed defendants appeared before the Trial Court and
submitted that they had no objection to the application for
impleadment being allowed, the Trial Court proceeded to reject
the application on the ground that the proposed defendants
were not family members of the parties to the suit.
3. Considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
4. In view of the categorical finding recorded by the
trial Court in paragraph No. 3 of the impugned order that the
proposed defendants, though represented by their counsel, had
no objection to the application for impleadment being allowed,
this Court considers it appropriate to dispense with notice to
the respondents herein.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58622
WP No. 32081 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010701772026
5. The relationship of defendant Nos. 6 to 16 with the
plaintiff and the other defendants is not in dispute. They are
stated to be the sons, daughters, grandchildren and daughters-
in-law of defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The trial Court has not
recorded any finding disputing the aforesaid relationship.
6. Defendant Nos. 17 to 19 appear to be the joint
developers under the Joint Development Agreement dated
22.08.2022 and the General Power of Attorney dated
22.08.2022 in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property. As evident
from paragraph No. 3 of the impugned order, the said proposed
defendants have also expressed no objection to the application
for impleadment being allowed.
7. The Trial Court proceeded on the premise that all
the proposed defendants were strangers or third parties to the
family of the plaintiff and the other defendants. Such a finding
is without any basis. In view of the fact that the proposed
defendants have expressed no objection to their impleadment,
the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the
application.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58622
WP No. 32081 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010701772026
8. In that view of the matter, the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 15.11.2025 is set aside.
(iii) I.A. No.9 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section
151 of CPC is hereby allowed.
(iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner shall carry out
necessary amendment.
(v) In view of allowing the said application, the
petitioner shall take fresh steps for service of notice
to the impleaded defendants.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41