- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6350 WP No. 102345 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.102345 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VENULABAI W/O. SITARAM KADAM AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, RESIDING AT ATHANI, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. 2. PROMOD S/O. PRABHAKAR POL AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, RESIDING AT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR DISTRICT, MAHARASTRA STATE. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UMESH P.HAKKARAKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. ASHOK S/O. MANOHAR BHOSALE AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT NIPPANI, NOW RESIDING AT VASI NAVI MUMBAI-230532, SECTOR–1. 2. SMT. RAJASHRI W/O. PRABHAKAR POL AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, RESIDING AT ATHANI, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002. 3. SMT. SHRIDEVI W/O. SHANKAR KARATMAL AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, RESIDING AT ATHANI-590002, NOW AT SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA. 4. MISS. POONAM D/O. PRABHAKAR POL AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, RESIDINT AT ATHANI, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H.R.DESHPANDE AND SMT. USHA DESHPANDE, ADVOCATES FOR R2 TO R4) Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.19 10:40:23 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6350 WP No. 102345 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08/02/2021 PASSED BY THE V ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI IN O.S. NO.645/2009 ON I.A.NO.9 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioners are assailing the order passed by the learned Judge on I.A.No.9 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for brevity) requesting the Court to permit the petitioners to come on record and contest the suit filed for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.645/2009. Learned Judge has rejected the application on the ground that both the petitioners are not necessary parties to the proceedings. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents. Perused the order under challenge. 3. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the niece of the original executant of the agreement to sell, namely Prabhakar Maruti - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6350 WP No. 102345 of 2022 Pol. She contends that her mother is the sister of the said Prabhakar Maruti Pol, and on the basis of this relationship, she seeks to be impleaded in the present suit. However, it is an admitted position that petitioner No.1 is not a Class-I legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in relation to the deceased executant. In a suit for specific performance of contract, the scope of enquiry is narrowly confined to the validity, enforceability, and performance of the contractual obligations as agreed between the parties to the contract. The rights of third parties, especially those who do not fall within the category of necessary or proper parties as per Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be adjudicated in such proceedings. Since petitioner No.1’s claim does not emanate from the agreement to sell but is rather rooted in an asserted familial connection, she cannot be said to have any enforceable legal right in the subject matter of the suit. Her remedy, if any, lies independently and she must seek appropriate relief in a separate and properly instituted suit in accordance with law. 4. With regard to petitioner No.2, it is noted that defendants No.2 to 4 were brought on record upon the demise - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6350 WP No. 102345 of 2022 of the original defendant Prabhakar Maruti Pol. These defendants have seriously contested the legal status of petitioner No.2, specifically denying that he is the son of Prabhakar. In a suit for specific performance of contract, the legal focus remains strictly on whether the agreement was executed by the executant, whether the plaintiff has performed or was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and whether the equitable relief of specific performance should be granted. The scope of such a suit does not extend to a detailed inquiry into disputed questions of lineage, paternity, or succession, which involve complex questions of fact and law that require a comprehensive trial and possibly the presentation of oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, such disputed claims of status fall outside the purview of the present proceedings. However, this observation shall not preclude petitioner No.2 from asserting his rights, if any, in an independent proceeding instituted in a competent forum. 5. In light of the above, it is evident that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The primary issue in the present suit is whether Prabhakar Maruti Pol had, in fact, executed a valid and enforceable agreement to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6350 WP No. 102345 of 2022 sell in favour of the plaintiff. The burden is upon the plaintiff to prove the execution of the agreement, to establish that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and to demonstrate that he is entitled to the equitable and discretionary relief of specific performance. The adjudication of these issues must remain within the four corners of the contract and cannot be broadened to include the personal claims of third parties who assert inheritance or succession rights without being necessary to the resolution of the contractual dispute. If plaintiff succeeds in proving the suit agreement and court grants specific relief of contract, the decree binds on all those persons claiming through Prabhakar Maruti Pol. With these observations, writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE AM/- Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8