- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010045092020 NC: 2026:KHC:51171 WP No. 2480 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.2480 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT.DILSHAD SHEIK MOHIUDDIN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING OF GOVINDAPURA THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PINCODE - 562111 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.MADHVACHAR M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H.M.SRINATH S/O LATE S.MADANGOPAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.305 CHANDRAKANTA NILAYA 1ST MAIN ROAD, N S PALYA BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU-560076 2. SMT.PYARIJAN W/O NANEJAN AGED MAJOR R/AT SULAKUNTE VILLAGE Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010045092020 NC: 2026:KHC:51171 WP No. 2480 of 2020 THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI KULUVANAHALLI POST NELAMANGALA TALUK …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-G ORDER DATED 07.08.2019 ON I.A.NO.2/2018 IN O.S.NO.575/2017 ON FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA AND REJECT THE APPLICATION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by defendant No.2, who came to be impleaded at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S.No.575/2017, a suit instituted for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that she is not a party to the suit agreement and, therefore, her presence is neither necessary nor proper for effective adjudication of the dispute relating to the execution and enforceability of the suit agreement. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010045092020 NC: 2026:KHC:51171 WP No. 2480 of 2020 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the pleadings and the impugned order. 3. The material on record indicates that the suit has been instituted seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 08.09.2017. It is not in dispute that the Gift Deed in favour of the present petitioner was executed by the original defendant on 02.11.2017, i.e., subsequent to the execution of the suit agreement. 4. Ordinarily, in a suit for specific performance, the parties to the agreement and the persons against whom the contractual relief is sought would constitute the necessary parties. However, the question of impleadment has to be examined in the backdrop of the subsequent transaction relied upon by the petitioner herself. In the present case, the petitioner claims an independent interest under the Gift Deed dated 02.11.2017, which admittedly Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010045092020 NC: 2026:KHC:51171 WP No. 2480 of 2020 came into existence subsequent to the agreement of sale dated 08.09.2017. 5. The impleadment of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly unnecessary. The plaintiff, in the event of succeeding in the suit and securing a decree for specific performance, would necessarily be entitled to have the decree effectively worked out against subsequent transferees or persons claiming an interest in the suit property through the original defendant. Her presence would consequently enable the Trial Court to completely and effectively adjudicate the rights of all persons claiming an interest in the suit property and avoid the possibility of a subsequent round of litigation. 6. It is also relevant to note that the Gift Deed in favour of the petitioner was executed subsequent to the suit agreement. The learned Trial Court, keeping in view the sequence of the transactions and the necessity of avoiding complications in the event of the plaintiff Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010045092020 NC: 2026:KHC:51171 WP No. 2480 of 2020 ultimately succeeding in the suit, has exercised its discretion in permitting the petitioner to be brought on record. Such exercise of discretion is intended to ensure complete adjudication of the controversy and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 7. This Court finds no perversity, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error in the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court. The mere fact that the petitioner was not an executant of the suit agreement, by itself, would not render her impleadment impermissible when she claims an interest in the suit property through her mother/defendant under a subsequent transaction and her presence may be necessary for effectively determining the rights flowing from such competing claims. 8. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Trial Court allowing the impleading application does not warrant interference in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010045092020 NC: 2026:KHC:51171 WP No. 2480 of 2020 The petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified