- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010631792023 NC: 2026:KHC:47747 WP No. 27674 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 27674 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI ALIRA A ERMU HAJI S/O LATE A E ALI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT KATRAKOLLI 5TH BLOCK HUDUR VILLAGE PONNAMPET KODAGU DISTRICT 571216 …PETITIONER (BY SRIYUTHS R.S.RAVI - SENIOR COUNSEL FOR AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI P MOIDU HAJI S/O LATE PARI AGED 75 YEARS KOYAKKOTT MUNDERI POST EEACHERU KANNUR DISTRICT KERALA STATE 670591 2. SMT MARIYAM D/O LATE KUTTYALIHAJI Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010631792023 NC: 2026:KHC:47747 WP No. 27674 of 2023 W/O KAREEM AGED 65 YEARS R/AT NAFEESA MANZIL EDYILPEEDIKA EACHERU POST KANNUR DISTRICT 670591 3. SRI HAMSA S/O LATE KUTTYALI HAJI AGEDA BOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NAFEESA MANZIL EDYIPEEDIKA EACHUR POST KANNUR DISTRICT 670591 4. SUBAIDA D/O LATE KUTTYALI HAJI W/O ASRAF R/AT NAFEESA MANZIL EDYIPEEDIKA EACHUR POST KANNUR DISTRICT 670591 5. SRI ABDUL RAZAK S/O LTE KUTTYALI HAJI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NAFEESA MANZIL EDYIPEEDIKA EACHUR POST KANNUR DISTRICT 670591 6. SMT SUHRA W/O LATE KUTTYALI HAJI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS ZEENATH MANZIL CHALIL - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010631792023 NC: 2026:KHC:47747 WP No. 27674 of 2023 KOTTAM ROAD MUNDERI POST KANNUR DISTRICT 670591 7. SMT ZEENATH D/O LATE KUTTYALI HAJI W/O SAJEER AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ZEENATH MANZIL CHALIL KOTTAM ROAD MUNDERI POST KANNUR DISTRICT 670591 8. SMT RAHMATH D/O LATE KUTTYALI HAJI W/O RASHEED AGED 28 YEARS ZEENATH MANZIL CHALIL KOTTAM ROAD MUNDERI POST KANNUAR DISTRICT 670591 9. SMT SALMATH D/O LATE KUTTYALI HAJI W/O RAZIK AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS ZEENATH MANZIIL CHALIL KOTTAM ROAD MUNDERI POST KANNAUR DISTRICT 670591 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRIYUTHS VARUN SAI Y - ADVOCATE FOR SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010631792023 NC: 2026:KHC:47747 WP No. 27674 of 2023 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27TH OCTOBER 2023 MADE ON IA NO.13 IN OS NO. 95/19 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIRAJPET, VIDE ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging Order dated 27.10.2023 passed in IA No.13 in OS No.95/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge, Virajpet. 2. Sri R.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 had filed the aforesaid suit seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to one-half share in the suit property as the petitioner herein is an Agreement of Sale Holder, which was executed by defendant No.1 in the suit. It is submitted that defendant No.1, being the absolute owner having acquired the property under the registered sale - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010631792023 NC: 2026:KHC:47747 WP No. 27674 of 2023 deed, had entered into an Agreement of Sale in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is a proper party to the suit filed by respondent No.1. It is submitted that, out of Rs.70,00,000/- total sale consideration, Rs.20,00,000/- has been paid to defendant No.1 and that neither defendant No.1 nor his legal heirs had filed a written statement in the suit. Hence there is a likelihood of collusion between the parties to deprive the right of the Agreement Holder, the petitioner herein. Hence, the petitioner may be permitted to come on record in the suit as a proper party/necessary party. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Others1. 3. Per contra, Sri Sachin B.S., learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff, supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that, in similar circumstances, 1 AIR 1958 SC 886 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010631792023 NC: 2026:KHC:47747 WP No. 27674 of 2023 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Master Thejas and Another vs. C.R.Babu and Others2, at paragraphs No.6 and 7 has held that, in a suit for declaration, the Agreement Holder is yet to establish his independent right over the property and until the same is established, he cannot be impleaded. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and perused the material available account. 5. Respondent No.1 herein had filed a suit in OS No.95/2019 seeking for a judgment and decree of declaration that, the plaintiff is entitled for one-half share in the suit schedule property and to allot a separate share and for the relief of injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to 2 WP No.37203/2015, DD.02.01.2024 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010631792023 NC: 2026:KHC:47747 WP No. 27674 of 2023 as "CPC") seeking to implead him. The said application was opposed. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the said application. 6. It is to be noticed that the petitioner is contending that, he is an Agreement Holder with the deceased defendant No.1 in the suit and that the deceased defendant No.1 had not filed any written statement nor his legal heirs have filed written statement defending the suit and that they may collude with each other and defeat the rights of the petitioner. It is to be noticed that the petitioner is making assertion of his right based on the Agreement of Sale dated 18.11.2019, alleged to have been entered into between the petitioner and defendant No.1 in the suit and that, the material on record does not indicate that the petitioner had made any attempt to enforce his right under the Agreement dated 18.11.2019 till this day. The suit being for declaration between the plaintiff and defendants, the petitioner is a stranger to the aforesaid proceedings and his claims are yet to be - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010631792023 NC: 2026:KHC:47747 WP No. 27674 of 2023 adjudicated in an appropriate forum. Merely because of the fact that the petitioner is an Agreement Holder, it does not confer any right upon him to come on record in a suit filed by respondent No.1 for the relief of declaration. In my considered view, if the petitioner has any right under the said Agreement, he has to establish the same in accordance with law. Until such a right is established, the petitioner cannot be called as either a "necessary" or "proper” party to the suit. The trial Court, taking note of the said aspect, has rightly rejected the application. The decision relied by the petitioner has no application to the facts of the case. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Pending applications are closed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE rs/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13