- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.23294/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: G. PRASANNA S/O T.N. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O NO.478, IST MAIN B BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT BENGALURU-560037. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.N. HARISH, ADV.,) AND: 1. MALASHRI W/O R. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O H NO.140, SIDDAPURA WHITEFIELD ROAD RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560066. 2. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 3. MALLESHA GOWDA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 4. VYAJAYANTHI MALA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021 5. ROHINI D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 6. UMAMAHESHWARI D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 7. SARASWATHI D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 7 ARE R/OF SIDDAPURA VILLAGE RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST BEHIND SHRI RAM BAKERY BUILDING NEXT TO SHELL PETROL BUNK BENGALURU-560066. 8. V. NAGESH S/O J. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O CHIKKATIRUPATHI VILLAGE LAKKURU HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPI KRISHNA D, ADV., FOR SRI. SHARAN B.T. ADV., FOR R1 V/O DTD:01.12.2022 NOTICE TO R2-R8 ARE D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2021 ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.501/2015 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND THEREBY DISMISS THE IA NO.2 MADE BY THE R1 IN O.S.NO.501/2015 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-C & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.10.2021 passed on IA No. 2 in O.S.No.501/2015 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the trial Court’) 2. Sri.P.N.Harish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 filed the suit in O.S.No.501/2015 for specific performance. In the said suit, the petitioner was not a party. Thereafter, an application for impleadment was filed by respondent No.1, which came to be allowed by the trial Court without assigning any reasons and without appreciating the documents placed by the petitioner. It is submitted that as per the plaint averment the plaintiff claims to be an agreement holder for 2 guntas of land in Sy.No.72/12 and Sy.No.72/13 and the petitioner has purchased 3.12 guntas - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021 in Sy.No.72/12 and 2 guntas in Sy.No.72/13 is purchased by defendant No.7, which can be seen from the records and the sketch. Hence the proposed defendant No.7 may be necessary and proper party to the suit for specific performance and not the petitioner. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Gopi Krishna D, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the plaint averment as well as the agreement of sale clearly refers two survey numbers and in one of the survey number, the petitioner has purchased the property to an extent of 3.12 guntas, hence, he being the successor in interest of the property, is a necessary and proper party to the suit, which has been rightly considered by the trial Court and allowed the application. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent No.1 has filed the suit in O.S.No.501/2015 for the relief of specific performance of contract i.e., agreement of sale dated 05.05.2010. In the said suit, the respondent No.1 initially arrayed the parties to the agreement as defendants. The material on record indicates that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to implead the present petitioner as well as one Sri.V.Nagesh as defendant Nos.7 and 8 in the said suit. The trial Court under the impugned order, allowed the said application. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has entered into a Joint Development Agreement (‘JDA’) in respect of 3.12 guntas of land in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021 Sy.No.72/12 i.e., 4083.73 sq.ft. The perusal of the JDA indicates that the property is in Sy.No.72/12 (old Sy.No.72/8) of Siddapura Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru, which is the subject matter of the suit. Further, the plaint averments indicate that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is claiming to have an agreement of sale in respect of 2 guntas of land on the northern side of land in Sy.No.72/8 and 72/6, more precisely in new Sy.No.72/12 and 72/13. When the respondent No.1/plaintiff in the suit has specifically made an assertion that she is the agreement holder of a portion of the land which falls in the JDA entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is required to contest the suit. Prima-facie it appears that the petitioner is a successor in interest of the property in view of the JDA, hence the petitioner is required to be continued as a defendant in the suit. 7. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that the property claimed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021 distinct from that of the JDA is concerned, the same is required to be adjudicated in the suit. 8. It is open for the petitioner to place the relevant material including the Joint Development Agreement, conversion order, revenue records and sketch to indicate that the schedule to the JDA dated 16.09.2015 is distinct from that of the property claimed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff under the agreement of sale during the course of trial. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32