- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5354 WP No. 39583 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 39583 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: NIKHAT AFREEM W/O SHAIK ZIYAULLA D/O MOHAMMED RIYAZ, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O SHANTHI NAGARA, PAVAGAA TOWN, NOW R/O N.18-293, PARAGI ROAD HINDUPUR TOWN, SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH - 515 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NARASIMHA REDDY S/O V.NAGABHUSHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47YEARS R/AT REDDY COLONY, PAVAGADA TOWN, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202. 2. MOHAMMED RIYAZ S/O MOHAMMED FAZLULLA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, CLASS I P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5354 WP No. 39583 of 2025 R/AT NEAR M.A.G. BUILDINGS, TUMKUR ROAD, PAVAGADA TOWN AND PAVAGADA TALUK - 561 202. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AN IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17-11-2025 ON I.A.NO.4 INO.S.NO.18/2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT PAVAGADA AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW I.A. NO.4 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.18/2021 AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the impleading applicant in I.A. No. 4 filed in O.S.No.18/2021 is directed against the impugned order dated 17.11.2025, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner -impleading applicant under I.A.No.4 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking impleadment as defendant No.2 in the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the first respondent - Narasimha Reddy instituted suit in O.S. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5354 WP No. 39583 of 2025 No.18/2021 against second respondent - defendant for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The petitioner who is none other than the daughter of the sole defendant, Mohamad Riyaz, filed the instant application inter area contending that the said Mohamad Riyaz had gifted the suit schedule property in her favour as long back as on 10.04.2016 and that she had already filed a suit against both plaintiff and defendant which is pending in OS No.23/2023 before the trial Court for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the very same suit schedule property. The said impleadment application filed by the petitioner having been opposed by the respondents, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the impleadment application by holding as under - ORDER ON I.A No.IV The applicant has filed an application Under Order 1 rule 10(2) R/W Section 151 of C.P.C-IA No.IV and sought to implead her as defendant No.2, in this suit. 2. In support of the above I.A, the applicant has filed affidavit and stated that, the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for Specific performance of agreement of sale dated 01-12-2017. Her father Mohammed Riaz, the defendant had executed a Gift deed dated 10-04-2016 with respect to suit schedule property measuring 0.25.04.00 guntas in Sy No.15/1A6 of Pavagada village. Since the date of Gift, she has been in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5354 WP No. 39583 of 2025 possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Her father had executed a registered agreement of sale dated 01- 12-2017 infavour of plaintiff with respect to suit property, without her knowledge and consent. The said agreement of sale is not binding on her right and share in the suit property. She came to know about the said fact recently and 12 and permanent injunction, which is pending for consideration before SEA Suit in O.S.No.23/2023 against the defendant for Declaration the. Pri Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada. She is the lawful owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. She has got right and merits in the case, hence, she is necessary party to the present proceedings. If the application is allowed, no hardship would be caused to the plaintiff. On the other hand, if the application is rejected, it would cause much hardship to him. On the said grounds, he prayed to allow the application. 3. On the other hand, the plaintiff has filed objection to the application denying all the allegations made in the affidavit annexed to it. It is contended that, the applicant claiming right and possession under fabricated unregistered gift deed dated 10-04-2016, subsequent to execution of registered agreement of sale dated 01-12- 2007 in his favour. The said gift deed has been created by applicant colluding with defendant for wrongful gain. On the basis of gift deed she has filed suit in O.S.No.23/2023 against the defendant for Declaration and permanent injunction, which is pending for consideration before the Prl Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada. She has obtained an ex-parte ad-interim temporary Injunction against her father defendant suppressing the materials facts. She will not get any right based on the alleged Gift deed with respect to suit property. The said gift deed came to be created after filing the present suit and after passing an order of injunction. The applicant and entire family having knowledge about the agreement of sale and filing of this suit. In order to avoid the plaintiff from getting the relief, they have colluded with each other and created Gift deed. The present suit is for specific performance of contract and the applicant who is not party to the agreement is not the necessary party to the suit. The dispute in the suit is only between him and defendant and the scope of suit cannot be widened permitting the applicant as a party. He intends to enter the suit only to create hurdles in drawing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5354 WP No. 39583 of 2025 decree and thereby make or mend the plaintiff to his vices. If the application is rejected, nothing will be caused to the applicant. On the said grounds, the plaintiff prayed to reject the application. 4. Now the points that arise for my consideration are: 1) Whether the applicant is a necessary or proper party to the suit to resolve the real controversy between the parties? 2) What order? 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and plaintiff. 6. Perused the I.A and entire materials available on record. 7. My finding to the above points are: Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per the final order for the following: REASONS 8. Point No.1: This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the relief of Specific performance of contract and such other reliefs. It is the case of plaintiff that, defendant being the owner of suit schedule property had executed a registered agreement of sale dated 01- 12-2017 in his favour with respect to suit schedule property. Subsequent to execution of agreement sale, he did not com forward to execute the sale deed by producing E-sketch. Hence, he has filed the present suit for enforcement of agreement of sale. 9. On the other hand, defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It is the contention of defendant that, in view of non-settlement among the brothers and cancellation of durasth effected after partition dated 12-11-2017, he could not get E- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5354 WP No. 39583 of 2025 sketch and its beyond his control. The consideration amount of Rs14,50,000/- mentioned in the agreement of sale is on a lower side having regard to market value of year 2017-18. 10. The learned counsel for the applicant has filed written argument reiterating the contentions taken in the affidavit of IA and further contended that, applicant filed application for impleading her as her father had executed Gift deed dated 10-04-2016. The plaintiff filed suit with respect to property which is in her possession and enjoyment and without proper title and possession, the suit is not maintainable. The alleged agreement is subsequent to execution of Gift deed. The said agreement executed without her knowledge and consent. Hence, she is the necessary party to the suit. As per the mohamadan law gift: Hiba with respect to movable and immovable property is acceptable. In the present case, the Gift deed is executed without any exchange and same was accepted Section 129 TP act is not applicable. That the declaration of Gift. Send this Hiba according to Mohamadan law and provisions of Section 129 TP act is not applicable. That the declaration acceptance and delivery of possession which are ingredients of Gift under mohamadan law have been fulfilled. On the basis of Gift, the property was already transferred into the name of applicant. After coming to know about the agreement of sale, she had filed a suit in O.S.No.23/2023 against the defendant before the Prl Civil judge and JMFC, Pavagada which is pending for consideration. 11. It is argued that, as per the law laid down in the decision reported in ILR 2000 KAR 1534 in the case between G.M.Mujjer Ahamad and another V/s Mohammed Zafrulla, oral Gift under mohamadan law is permissible. The applicant is the owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, hence, she is the necessary party to the suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. On the said grounds, the learned counsel sought to allow the application as sought for. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted his argument reiterating the contentions taken in the objection filed to the application. It is argued that, the applicant claiming right and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5354 WP No. 39583 of 2025 possession under fabricated unregistered gift deed dated 10-04-2016, subsequent to execution of registered agreement of sale dated 01-12-2007 in favour of plaintiff. The said gift deed has been created by applicant colluding with defendant for wrongful gain. On the basis of gift deed she has filed suit in O.S.No.23/2023 against the defendant for Declaration and permanent injunction, which is pending for consideration before the Prl Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada. She will not get any right based on the alleged Gift deed with respect to suit property. In order to avoid the plaintiff from getting the relief, they have colluded with each other and created Gift deed. The present suit is for specific performance of contract and the applicant who is not party to the agreement is not the necessary party to the suit. 13. It is argued that, the dispute in the suit is only between him and defendant and the scope of suit cannot be widened permitting the applicant as a party. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on decision reported in AIR 2016 KAR 1 in the case between Sri. Narayana reddy V/s Sri.Manjunath and others and submitted that, in view of the law laid down in the said decision a stranger to the contract are not necessary parties. The intention of applicant is only to create hurdles in drawing decree and thereby make or mend the plaintiff to his vices. If the application is rejected, nothing will be caused to the applicant. On the said grounds, the learned counsel for the plaintiff prayed to reject the application. 14. Admittedly, the relief sought in this suit is for Specific performance of agreement of sale on a specific cause of action occurred to the plaintiff. The purpose of plaintiff to file the present suit is to enforce the agreement of sale executed by defendant in his favour. It is the contention of applicant that, she is the daughter of defendant and he had executed gift deed in her favour with respect to suit property on 10-04-2016. She has got right over the suit property, in which the plaintiff claiming his right under agreement of sale. It is an admitted fact that, she had already filed suit against the plaintiff and defendant in O.S.No.23/2023 for declaration and permanent injunction which is pending for consideration. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5354 WP No. 39583 of 2025 15. It is not the case of applicant that, she got the right subsequent to agreement to sale or suit. According to her, she had got right even prior to execution of agreement to sell. She is not the party to the suit and there is no contract between the plaintiff and applicant. The sale transaction under registered agreement of sale is only between the plaintiff and defendant. The applicant alleging that, her father had executed Gift deed and subsequently executed agreement of sale infavour of plaintiff without her knowledge and consent. It is pertinent to note, the defendant herein became the silent spectator by doing all these. It prima-facie shows that, the applicant filed this application at the instance of defendant. 16. I have gone though the decision which relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff reported in AIR 2016 KAR 1 in the case between Sri. Narayana reddy V/s Sri.Manjunath. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble High court held that, " in a suit for Specific performance of contract, the dispute being between the vendor and the agreement holder, the question of deciding the tile and possession of the parties interested cannot be gone into. The respondents No.3 to 6 being the strangers to the contract who are claiming their rights over the suit schedule property as legal heirs of deceased Khashi Nanjundappa are not necessary parties to the present suit. If they have any rights in the suit schedule property, it would be open for them to assert their rights either by way of 2 Independent suit or by taking recourse to the relevant provisions of CPC, if available to them to obstruct the execution, in a suit for Specific performance of contract, the question involved is very limited, which cannot be enlarged to adjudicate the rights of the parties, i.e., respondents No.3 to 6 said to be the legal heirs of deceased Kashi Nanjundappa, changing the character of the suit is not permissible". 17. Wherein the said judgment Hon'ble High court also referred the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court reported in AIR 2005 SC 2813 in the case between Kasturi V/s lyyamperumal and others. Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court held that, " It is well settled that in a suit for Specific performance of contract for sale that the lis between the appellant and the respondent No.2 and 3 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5354 WP No. 39583 of 2025 shall only be gone into and it is also not open to the court to decide whether the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 have acquired any title and possession of the contracted property as that would not germane for decision in the suit for Specific performance of contract for sale that is to say in a suit for Specific performance of contract for sale the controversy to be decided raised by the appellant against the respondent No.2 and 3 can only be adjudicated upon, and in such a lis the court cannot decide the question of title and possession of the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11 relating to the contracted property" 18. In the case on hand, the registered agreement of sale with respect to suit property taken place only between the plaintiff and defendant and the applicant is stranger to the said contract. Apart from that, the applicant had already filed suit in O.S.No.23/2023 against the defendant and plaintiff herein for Declaration and permanent injunction, which is pending for consideration before the Prl Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme court and also Hon'ble High court, in a suit for Specific performance of contract for sale that the lis between the plaintiff and defendant shall only be gone into and it is not open to the court to decide whether the applicant has acquired any title and possession of the suit schedule contracted property. 19 The controversy to be decided raised by the plaintiff against the defendant can only be adjudicated. The court cannot decide the question of title and possession of the property sold under agreement of sale. Therefore, the applicant who is claiming her right under the alleged Gift deed is not a necessary or proper party to the suit. If at all, the applicant has any grievance against the plaintiff and defendant, she has to exhaust the remedy in another suit which is pending for consideration. So for as the issue involved in the present case is concerned, her presence is not necessary. She neither necessary nor proper party to the present suit. 20. I have gone through the entire materials available on record. It appears to the court that, the applicant has not made out grounds to show that, she is a necessary or - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5354 WP No. 39583 of 2025 proper party to the suit and in her absence no effective decree can be passed. On the other hand, the plaintiff has established that, she is not the necessary party to the suit. The intention of applicant clearly shows that, she has filed the present application in this case to delay the proceedings and to cause hardship to the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that, the application filed by the applicant liable to be rejected. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative. 21. Point No.2: In view of the reasons given on Point No.1, 1 proceed to pass the following: ORDER The application filed by the applicant by name Nikhat Afreen W/o Shaik Ziyaulla Under Order 1 rule 10(2) R/W Section 151 of C.P.C-IA No.IV, is hereby rejected. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. 3. As can be seen from the material on record and the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kasturi vs E. M. Perumal reported AIR 2005 SC 2813 and followed by this Court in the case of Narayan Reddy vs. Manjunath reported AIR 2016 KAR 1, the petitioner who claims an independent right over the suit schedule property and was undisputedly not a party to the agreement sought to be enforced by the plaintiff against the defendant was neither a proper nor necessary party to the suit - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5354 WP No. 39583 of 2025 especially when the petitioner had already instituted a separate suit in O.S. No.23/2023 ventilating her grievances. It is needless to state that any judgment, decree, order, compromise etc. passed/to be passed in O.S. No.18/2021 would not be binding upon the petitioner nor affect her right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property nor cause prejudice to her rights and contentions in O.S. No.23/2023 filed by her. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A. No.4 cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam and Ors v Chhabi Nath and Ors – (2015) 5 SCC 423; K.P. Natarajan and Ors. vs. Muthalammal and Ors – AIR 2021 SC 344; and Mohd. Ali v V. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. Accordingly, the following - ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 passed in O.S.No.18/2021. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5354 WP No. 39583 of 2025 (ii) It is made clear that any judgment, decree, order, compromise etc. passed/to be passed in O.S. No.18/2021 shall not be binding upon the petitioner nor affect her right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property nor cause prejudice to her rights and contentions in O.S. No.23/2023 filed by her. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE YKL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13