- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:690 WP No. 105858 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.105858 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. ARPITA D/O. PRAKASH ANGADI, AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. HARTI-581103, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG. 2. AKSHATA D/O. PRAKASH ANGADI, AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. HARTI-581103, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PANIBAI URF PANIDEVI W/O. SUKHARAJ RATHOD, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. RAMADATTA APARTMENT, B-BLOCK, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 2. PRAKASH S/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA ANGADI, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. M/S. PRAVEEN ELECTRICAL WORK, LBS COMPLEX, MULAGUNDA NAKA, GADAG-581103, TQ. DIST. GADAG. 3. RANACHODMAL S/O. POONAMJI RATHOD, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. C.B.T HUBBALLI-580023, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A. NO.11 IN O.S NO.306/2021 BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT GADAG DATED 02.06.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:690 WP No. 105858 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.11 in O.S.No.306/2021 dated 02.06.2025 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Gadag, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC was dismissed, the petitioners are before this Court. 2. The respondent No.1 who is the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19.11.2018 against respondent No.2 herein. The respondent No.2 herein is none other than the father of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, it is a joint family property and the father cannot execute an agreement of sale in respect of defendant No.1. As such, they have filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead themselves as proposed defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit. I.A.No.11 came to be dismissed by order impugned. 3. While dismissing the application, the trial Court had observed that in a suit for specific performance, the rights of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:690 WP No. 105858 of 2025 parties can only be decided. Whether this is a joint family property or a self-acquired property of defendant No.1 cannot be decided by the trial Court. It would amount to expanding the scope of the suit for specific performance and accordingly, the trial Court had dismissed the application that is filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when it is a joint family property, the father cannot enter into an agreement of sale. If the petitioners are made parties to the suit, they would be able to contest the matter and place the true facts before the trial Court. As such, their presence is necessary in the present suit which was not considered by the trial Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the entire material on record. The suit is filed for specific performance. A party who is denying the title of the property of one of the contracting parties cannot be impleaded in a suit and inter se disputes between one of the contracting parties and the third party cannot be decided in a suit for specific performance. If the petitioners want to file a suit for partition, it is always open - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:690 WP No. 105858 of 2025 for them to file a suit for partition including this property. But they cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance. The trial Court had rightly considered the application and dismissed the same and this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MEG CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56