IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 6212 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. ERAMMA W/O. LATE RENUKAPPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI. SATISH S/O LATE RENUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 3. SRI.RAKESH S/O LATE RENUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT THATTEKERE VILLAGE, SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562 130.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MUDDURAJ C.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, S/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

2. SMT. DAKSHAYANAMMA W/O P.R. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT PALANAHALLI VILLAGE SOLURU HOBLI MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 130.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJEGOWDA B.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.CHANDRASHEKARA K.A.,ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AGAINST THE ORDER DTD 18.01.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI IN O.S.NO.94/2016 ON I.A.NO.VI, VIDE AT ANNX-

C.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 18.01.2022, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge And JMFC, Magadi in O.S.No.94/2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’). By the impugned order, an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) filed by the petitioner / plaintiff seeking to implead the wife of defendant no.1 has been dismissed. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and the defendants are entitled to half share each in the suit schedule properties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that he filed a suit for partition and separate possession, in respect of the suit schedule properties. It was the case of the plaintiffs that during the pendency of these proceedings, item Nos.1 to 6 of the suit schedule properties were transferred in favour of the wife of the defendant no.1. Thus, an application under Order I, Rule 10 of CPC was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, however the learned Trial Court dismissed the application, stating that the wife of the petitioner is not a necessary party.

3. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner /plaintiff shows that the petitioner/plaintiff raised the issue of the execution of a Registered Gift Deed in respect of the suit schedule property item Nos. 1 to 6 on 24.08.2018, by the defendants/respondents. Paragraph-3 in this behalf of the application (duly translated) is set out below: “3. I further submit that while the said suit was pending before the Hon'ble High Court, with malicious intent to extinguish our right to the legal share of the suit properties item 1 to 6 of this suit, the respondent in this suit, jointly with his wife, the prospective respondent mentioned in the interlocutory application filed with this affidavit, illegally created a disputed registered gift deed in the name of the prospective respondent in respect of the suit properties item 1 to 6 of this suit on 24-08-2018. As aforesaid, the respondent did not have full right, authority, interest over the said claim assets to create the deed of gift in the name of the potential respondent in respect of item 1 to 6 and as per the said disputed created gift deed, the respondent also does not have any right over the said gift deed. On the basis of the said disputed created gift deed, revenue records have been created in the name of the respondent in respect of item 1 to 6 in respect of the said suit property vide M.R.No.H5/2018-19, The said matter came to my notice during the recent cross-examination of the respondent's counsel in the Hon'ble High Court and after obtaining and examining the documents from the concerned offices, I have come to know that the respondent, jointly with the prospective resp