- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32266 WP No. 20071 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 20071 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI GOVINDARAJU H S AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. SHIVAPPA, R/O. HONNEBAGI VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT BASAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/O. SIDDAPPA, R/O. KALPANAHOSALLI, THALIKATTE POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301. 2. SMT. SHASHIKALA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O. SHADAKSHARI, R/O. II CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGARA, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301. 3. SMT. MANJULA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O. SHASHIDHARA, R/O. KALLLAPURA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32266 WP No. 20071 of 2024 4. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O. LATE GOWDARA SIDRAMAPPA. 5. BASAVARAJA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOWDARA SIDRAMAPPA, 6. SURESHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOWDARA SIDRAMAPPA, RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE R/O. THOTADAMANE, AKALAKATTE VILLAGE, AGARABANNIHATTI POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213. 7. SMT. LATHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O. NAGARAJAPPA, R/O. KANDAVADI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 27-06-2024, VIDE, ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNAGIRI IN O.S NO.50/2022 ON I.A.NO.1 AND PASS APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS ALLOWING THE SAID APPLICATION BY GRANTING THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR THEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32266 WP No. 20071 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this court calling in question an order of the concerned court dated 27.06.2024 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking to implead himself as a party respondent in a suit for partition instituted by the respondents. 2. Heard Sri.Chidambara G.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Madhukar M, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner claims to be an agreement holder from the hands of one of the defendants No.1 to 3 in O.S.No.50/2022. The claim of the petitioner is on the strength of an agreement that was entered into in the year 2011. The suit for partition is instituted between the members of the family and the respondents herein in O.S.No.50/2022. After the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32266 WP No. 20071 of 2024 institution of the suit, the petitioner appears to have woken up and instituted a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.149/2022. 4. In the light of the agreement between defendants No.1 to 3 and the petitioner, he seeks to implead himself as a party respondent/defendant, as additional defendant No.5, in the suit instituted for partition between the family members. The application comes to be rejected on the score that there is no warrant of any agreement holder entering into a suit for partition between the members of the family seeking partition of the joint family properties. The concerned court, therefore rejects the application. The rejection of which is in tune with law as considered by the co-ordinate bench of this court in WP.No.37203/2015 disposed on 02.01.2024, wherein the co-ordinate bench has held as follows: "4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit is for partition and separate possession and defendant No.4 filed application IA No.X under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking his impleadment and the same came to be allowed by the Trial Court without assigning any reasons. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32266 WP No. 20071 of 2024 5. Admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.4 filed IA No.X under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking his impleadment and the same came to be allowed, which is being impugned herein. 6. It is the specific contention of defendant No.4 before the Trial Court that he had entered into an agreement for sale with defendant No.1 on 30.12.2011. Admittedly, the present suit OS.No.108/2010 was pending consideration as on the date of agreement for sale. It is also admitted that the sale agreement is not a registered agreement. Admittedly, no sale deed was executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 to treat him as transferee of property during the pendency of suit. 7. From the records that are available, it could be made out that, defendant No.4 has already filed the suit OS.No.1/2015 against defendant No.1 seeking specific performance of contract on the basis of very same agreement for sale. Even if defendant No.4 is to succeed in the said suit OS.No.1/2015, his rights will be subject to the result of the present suit and determination of right of defendant No.1. He can not seek any independent right against plaintiff or against any other defendants. His remedy is only against defendant No.1. Therefore, I am of the opinion that defendant No.4, who is impleaded by virtue of impugned order was neither a necessary party nor property party to be impleaded. No right is created under agreement for sale in respect of schedule property, except the right to seek specific performance of contract against defendant No.1, which he has already done by filing suit OS.No.1/2015. 8. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court committed an error in forming an opinion that the presence of defendant No.4 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32266 WP No. 20071 of 2024 is necessary for determination of dispute between the parties and the same cannot be accepted. Hence, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 22.07.2015 passed in OS.No. 108/2010 on the file of Civil Judge at Kadur allowing IA No.X filed under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC is set aside. Consequently, IA No.X is dismissed. The petitioner is in the same position, as was noticed and considered by the co-ordinate bench in the aforesaid judgment. The petitioner is an agreement holder, of an agreement of sale executed, between the petitioner and defendants No.1, 2 and 3. In the light of the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench, as quoted hereinabove, no fault can be found with the order passed by the concerned court rejecting the application for the entry of the petitioner, as additional defendant No.5 in a partition suit between the family members seeking partition of the joint family properties. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to place reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Madras in the case of G.M.V. KRISHNAMACHARI Vs. M.D. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32266 WP No. 20071 of 2024 DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL AND Ors. reported in AIR 1968 MADRAS 142, which according to the petitioner covers the issue. 6. In the light of the judgment rendered by the co- ordinate bench on an identical issue, I deem it appropriate to follow the same. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot project to be having a right to implead in a partition suit between the members of the family. The learned counsel would however submit that both the suit of the petitioner for specific performance in O.S.No.149/2022 and the partition suit in O.S.No.50/2022 is being considered by the same court. In the light of the said submissions, the only relief that can be granted to the petitioner is an observation at the hands of this Court that the concerned Court which is hearing both the aforesaid suits, shall take them up together on the dates that are to be listed but not clubbing. Except the said observation, there is no warrant of interference with the order passed by the concerned Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32266 WP No. 20071 of 2024 The petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55