- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436 WP No. 101389 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 101389 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJ S/O. GIRAMALLA KAKHANDAKI, AGE: 31 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RABAKAVI, TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587314. 2. BOURAVVA W/O. GIRAMALLA KAKHANDAKI, AGE: 31 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RABAKAVI, TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587314. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANAMANTH S/O. SIDDAPPA KAKHANDAKI, AGE: 42 YEARS Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436 WP No. 101389 of 2022 OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RABAKAVI, TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587314. 2. GIRIMALLA S/O. SIDDAPPA KAKHANDAKI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RABAKAVI, TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587314. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.I DATED 03/09/2020 IN O.S.NO.16/2020 PENDING IN ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, JR.DN.BANAHATTI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436 WP No. 101389 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the impugned order passed on I.A. No.I dated 03/09/2020 in O.S. No.16/2020 pending on the file of the Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Banahatti produced at Annexure-G, in the interest of justice and equity. ii. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Sri.Mahantesh R.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 filed a suit for relief of specific performance of the contract against respondent No.2. In the said suit, the petitioners herein who are the wife and son of respondent No.2 filed an application for impleadment which came to be rejected by the trial Court. It is submitted that the suit filed by respondent No.1 for relief of specific performance is a collusive suit which was filed only with an intention to defeat the right of the wife and son of respondent No.2 who are the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436 WP No. 101389 of 2022 petitioners herein. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the coparceners of the Hindu undivided property and they are the necessary and proper parties to adjudicate the suit filed by respondent No.1. It is submitted that if the petitioners are not arrayed as parties in the suit, their interest in the property would be adversely affected. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of NAGAPPA AND ORS. v. VARADA PRAKASH AND ORS. 1 Thus, he seeks to allow the appeal by permitting the petitioners to contest the proceedings. 3. Per contra, Sri.S.C.Bhute, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the trial court taking note of the fact that the petitioners are strangers to the contract and being the third parties, recorded a finding that they cannot be arrayed as parties to the proceedings. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GURMIT SINGH BHATIA v. KIRAN KANT ROBINSON2 and in the case of BHARAT KARSONDAS THAKKAR v. 1 In RSA No.6081/2010 disposed off on 12.10.2023 2 AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 3577 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436 WP No. 101389 of 2022 M/S.KIRAN CONSTRUCTION CO. & ORS.3. It is also submitted that the suit filed by the petitioners for partition against respondent No.1 is dismissed. Thus, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 5. The respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.16/2020 for a relief of specific performance of contract against respondent No.2 based on the agreement of sale dated 13.08.2014. In the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking for impleadment on the ground that they are the wife and son of respondent No.2 and they being the coparceners to the joint family property are entitled for share. The trial Court taking note of the submissions and pleadings, rejected the said application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid 3 2008 (2) CIVIL COURT CASES 561 (S.C.) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436 WP No. 101389 of 2022 decisions has categorically held that in a suit for specific performance a stranger to the agreement of sale cannot be impleaded as a party to the suit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KASTURI v. UYYAMPERUMAL AND ORS.4 has held that there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings or the proposed applicants should show that no effective decree can be passed in their absence. In the case on hand, the petitioners are claiming that they are wife and son of respondent No.2 and the property in question is a joint family property. Admittedly, the petitioners are strangers to the agreement in question. Hence, they cannot be arrayed as parties to the proceedings. In addition, it is also noticed that the petitioners filed O.S.No.193/2014 before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Banahatti for relief of partition and separate possession which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 03.04.2025. In view of the said fact also, they cannot be termed as a proper and necessary parties in the suit. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners have filed an appeal and if they succeed in the appeal, they may be permitted to file an application. Such 4 (2005) 6 SCC 733 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436 WP No. 101389 of 2022 prayer of the petitioners cannot be considered at this stage. If the petitioners succeed in the appeal filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.193/2014, it is open for them to avail any remedies available under law. 6. The decision of this Court in the case of NAGAPPA referred supra relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case for a simple reason that in the said case, the property is a joint family property and this Court framed the question of law as to whether the decree for specific performance of contract in respect of the undivided share can be granted in the absence of relief of partition in view of the bar contained under Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In the case on hand, the suit filed by the petitioners for relief of partition and separate possession which came to be dismissed and their rights with regard to the property not adjudicated and admittedly, they are the strangers to the contract. Hence, such a contention has no merit for consideration. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any error or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436 WP No. 101389 of 2022 calling for interference in this petition. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22