Impleadment of parties is necessary when their rights are directly involved in the suit properties and their absence would lead to multiplicity of proceedings or irreparable loss, particularly where collusion between existing parties is alleged.

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 23.08.2025 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED ON I.A.NO. 4/2025 IN O.S.NO. 27/2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT T.NARASIPURA.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIG H COURT OF KARNATAKA

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.4/2025 in O.S.No.27/2014 dated 23.08.2025 by the Senior Civil Judge, T.Narasipura, the petitioners are before this Court.

2. The petitioners before this Court are proposed defendant Nos.9, 10 and 11. The facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein who is the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.27/2014 seeking partition and separate possession against the other respondents herein. It is the case of the petitioners that their father Chikkakalashetty was the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.77/B, measuring 12 guntas, Sy.No.55/2, measuring 1 acre and Sy.No.54/4, measuring 15 guntas, Sy.No.77/7, measuring 33 guntas. The said properties have been granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of Chikkakalashetty and also the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right in favour of Chikkakalashetty on 29.09.1981 and also issued Form No.10 dated 05.11.1981. As per Form No.10, the Land Tribunal has issued the Grant Certificate in favour of Chikkakalashetty on 05.11.1981. Subsequently, the Tahasildar, T.Narasipura has ordered to change the khatha in the name of Chikkakalashetty in respect of the said properties. His name has been mentioned in the RTC column in respect of the said properties. Hence, the father of the proposed defendants was in possession and enjoyment of the said properties as absolute owner. When such being the case, behind the back of petitioners’ father Chikkakalashetty and the petitioners/proposed defendants, the defendant No.1 has got changed the khatha of the said properties in his name and the proposed defendants preferred appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru, against the said order and the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and remanded the same to the Tahasildar, by giving direction to the Tahasildar to verify the documents and to pass the order as per law. The Tahasildar has passed an order stating that Chikkakalashetty is the owner as per the order of the Land Tribunal and also has ordered to continue the khatha in respect of the said properties.

3. It is stated that defendant No.1 has no right, title over the suit schedule properties. After the death of Chikkakalashetty, the petitioners who are the legal heirs became the absolute owners of the properties. It is their case that the plaintiff colluding with defendant No.1 and others, has included the properties as item No.15, 16, 17 and 18 in the suit schedule properties. Recently, the petitioners came to know about the pendency of the suit from the villagers and the plaintiff and other defendants have colluded with each other and have filed a compromise petition. Hence, the petitioners had filed I.A.No.4/2025 to implead themselves as proposed defendant Nos.9 to 11. That application came to be rejected by the trial Court.

4. While rejecting the application, the trial Court had observed that it is clear that the dispute relating to grant of the properties came to be adjudicated before various authorities including the Civil Court and High Court of Karnataka. It is the tone and tenor of almos