- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25396 WP No. 15551 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15551 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MS. SHOBA YATHEESH W/O YATHEESH KUMAR D/O LATE M. NAGAMALAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.120, 4TH CROSS, OPPOSITE SYNDICATE BANK, KASTURI NAGAR, KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CLIVE JOHNS QUADROS., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. DINESH MALAVAIAH S/O LATE M. NAGAMALAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO. 488, 3RD CROSS, 7TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560008 2. MS. PRATHIBHA NARENDER W/O NARENDER RAJARATHNAM D/O LATE M. NAGAMALAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.924, 9TH A MAIN 2 E CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT KALYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK BENGALURU- 560043 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25396 WP No. 15551 of 2026 THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8321/2019 ON I.A.NO. VIII FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 BY THE XITH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-8) VIDE ANNEXURE-A., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.8 in O.S.No.8321/2019 dated 01.07.2025, the petitioner/plaintiff is before the Court. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for partition. In that, defendant No.1 has filed his written statement and a counter claim. Defendant No.1 has filed an application to implead the husband of the petitioner as defendant No.3 as she sought a counterclaim seeking partition of the property and the proposed defendant No.3 is the owner of the property. The trial Court, by the order impugned, has allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25396 WP No. 15551 of 2026 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the property of the proposed defendant is his self acquired property and that is not a part of the joint family property. Hence, he is not a necessary partly to the partition proceedings and the Court without considering this aspect has allowed the IA and impleaded him as defendant No.3. It is submitted that a person who has nothing to do with the joint family properties cannot be impleaded as a party in the partition suit. 4. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. By the order impugned, the trial Court had allowed the application and while allowing the application the trial Court has observed that the plaintiff is seeking partition of the property bearing No.488, HAL, 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore and alleged to be joint family property. Defendant No.1 has filed counterclaim with regard to different property allegedly acquired in the name of proposed defendant No.3 based on family arrangement. The Court has observed that considering defendant No.1 has set up counterclaim seeking share in the property standing in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25396 WP No. 15551 of 2026 name of the proposed defendant No.3 and the said person is a registered owner as per the sale deed and the Court is of the view that he is a proper party for the limited purpose of adjudicating the counterclaim. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others1 and he relies on paragraph No.11 reads as follows: 11. As noted hereinearlier, two tests are required to be satisfied to determine the question who is a necessary party, let us now consider who is a proper party in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. For deciding the question who is a proper party in a suit for specific performance the guiding principle is that the presence of such a party is necessary to adjudicate the controversies involved in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale. Thus, the question is to be decided keeping in mind the scope of the suit. The question that is to be decided in a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale is to the enforceability of the contract entered into between the parties to the contract. If the person seeking addition is added in such a suit, the scope of the suit for specific performance would be enlarged and it would be practically converted into a suit for title. Therefore, for effective adjudication of the controversies involved in the suit, presence of such parties cannot be said to be necessary at all. Lord 1 (2005)6SCC733 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25396 WP No. 15551 of 2026 Chancellor Cottenham in Tasker Vs. Small 1834 (40) English Report 848 made the following observations: "It is not disputed that, generally, to a bill for a specific performance of a contract for sale, the parties to the contract only are the proper parties; and, when the ground of the jurisdiction of Courts of Equity in suits of that kind is considered it could not properly be otherwise. The Court assumes jurisdiction in such cases, because a Court of law, giving damages only for the non- performance of the contract, in many cases does not afford an adequate remedy. But, in equity, as well as in law, the contract constitutes the right and regulates the liabilities of the parties; and the object of both proceedings is to place the party complaining as nearly as possible in the same situation as the defendant had agreed that he should be placed in. It is obvious that persons, strangers to the contract, and, therefore, neither entitled to the right, nor subject to the liabilities which arise out of it, are as much strangers to a proceeding to enforce the execution of it as they are to a proceeding to recover damages for the breach of it." The judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the above referred judgment, Court is dealing with a suit for specific performance but this is a suit for partition. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has rightly considered the fact and rightly allowed the application. When the defendant has filed a written statement and in respect of counter claim schedule property, the owner is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25396 WP No. 15551 of 2026 the proposed third defendant. Hence he is a necessary party to the partition suit and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff by impleading the proposed defendant. According to the plaintiff, it is a self-acquired property of the proposed defendant. Whether it is a self-acquired property or a joint family property, will be decided by the trial Court during the course of trial and all those things cannot be gone into at this stage. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15