- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29233 WP No. 19594 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI WRIT PETITION NO.19594 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. A NARAYANAMMA DECEASED BY HER LRS SMT. K REVATHI D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. SMT. K. HEMAVATHI D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3. SRI K. RAMESH S/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT 679/1, INDIRANAGAR, 1ST STAGE, 9TH “A” MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 038. [PETITIONER NO.1, 2 AND 4 REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER PETITIONER NO.3] 4. SRI K. SURESH S/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND H.M.KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29233 WP No. 19594 of 2025 R/AT NO.635, SOUTH ELLIS STREET, APT. NO.2106, CHANDLER ARIZONA 85224, USA-85224. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI V ANAND, ADVOCATE)` AND: 1. SRI A KRISHNAPPA @ KRISHNAREDDY S/O LATE PATRALA ABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.22, NEW POLICE STATION ROAD, P.A. STREET, 3RD CROSS, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036. SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.R SMT. A SARASWATHAMMA W/O P.A.KRISHNAPPA @ A.KRISHNAPPA @A.K.REDDY@KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.8, ACHATNAHALLI VILLAGE, (BEHIND SCANIA COMPANY KIADB NARASAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA ROAD.NO.10) KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT -563133 2. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE A. KRISHNAPPA @ A.K.REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 3. SMT. VANITHA.K D/O LATE A.KRISHNAPPA @ A.K.REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 4. SMT. SAVITHA.K D/O LATE A.KRISHNAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29233 WP No. 19594 of 2025 @ A.K.REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 5. SRI VIJAY KUMAR K S/O LATE A.KRISHNAPPA @ A.K.REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 6. SRI. RAVI KUMAR K S/O LATE A.KRISHNAPPA @ A.K.REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ALL ARE R/AT NO.22, NEW POLICE STATION ROAD, P.A. STREET, 3RD CROSS, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V NAGAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 & R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-D ORDER DATED 19.06.2025 ON I.A.NO.2/2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.17166/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29233 WP No. 19594 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed to challenge an order dated 19.06.2025 on I.A.No.2/2025 passed in O.S.No.17166/2006 on the file of the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall unit at Bengaluru. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the suit was filed for declaration and injunction. After coming into possession of certain documents filed by the proposed defendant No.7, particularly, the affidavit - Form No.26 submitted in an election, it came to his knowledge that he had availed an advance of Rs.50,00,000/- on the suit property. The declaration made in the election affidavit by the proposed defendant was while filing nomination for the seat of MLA for Krishnarajapuram constituency. The defendants - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29233 WP No. 19594 of 2025 opposed the aforesaid application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC on the ground that on verification of encumbrance certificate from 2001 to 2025 it reflected that there was no encumbrance or transaction related to the property in question. It was a suit for declaration and the necessary and proper parties who created a cloud over the title of the plaintiff were impleaded in the suit. It was stated that the proposed defendant is neither necessary nor proper party to the proceedings. 4. The Trial Court framed the point for determination that whether plaintiff No.1(c) has made out sufficient grounds that presence of proposed party is very much necessary for effective adjudication of dispute involved in the suit. The Trial Court noted that no doubt, the relevant Form filed during the election by the proposed defendant mentioned that advance amount of Rs.50,00,000/- in respect of Sy.No.22 of Kowdenahalli village was paid, however, at the same time, as per Encumbrance Certificate produced by the defendants in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29233 WP No. 19594 of 2025 respect of the property, there is no encumbrance in respect of the aforesaid survey number right from the year 2001 to 2025. After noting the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer Property Act, the Trial Court observed that there cannot be any transfer of right or title in property on mere agreement. It was correctly held that the presence of proposed party is not necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. Accordingly, IA filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 5. A perusal of the record of this petition reveals that O.S.No.17166/2006 was filed in the year 2006. It is in 2025, I.A.No.2/2025 was filed by plaintiff No.1(c) seeking impleadment of the proposed defendant. The concern of the plaintiff, as reflected from the arguments advanced at the Bar appears to be for obviating a likely challenge to the title claimed by the plaintiff at a future point of time. 6. In opinion of the Court, the plaintiff had to establish that the proposed defendant is a necessary party - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29233 WP No. 19594 of 2025 or even a proper party in the suit. The allegation that the proposed defendant had availed of advance or had paid advance of Rs.50,00,000/- in respect of the suit property, without there being any evidence of a registered instrument transferring title, it would not make the proposed defendant either a necessary or a proper party. As is the finding of the Trial Court that right from the year 2001 to 2025, no encumbrance is reflected as regards the suit property. A mere agreement would not create any right in favour of the agreement holder so as to deny the title in respect of the said property. 6. The order of the Trial Court is sound and requires no interference. This petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE SN