- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:691 WP No. 100113 of 2026 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.100113 OF 2026 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. AFZAL KHAN S/O. MEHAMOODKHAN BAGEWADI, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KULKARNI HAKKAL, GUDSHED ROAD, GANESHPETH, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI–HUBBALLI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAM P.GHORPADE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NIAMUDDIN GOUSEMODDINA BARDAWALE S/O. GOUSEMODDINA BARDAWALE, (APPELLANT NO.1 IN JRD/UBF/66/2017-18) AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.012, VISHALANAGARA, GIDHIHAL ROAD, HALE HUBBALLI-580030. 2. SMT. BANDENAWAJA GOUSEMODDINA BARDAWALE S/O. GOUSEMODDINA BARDAWALE, (APPELLANT NO.2 IN JRD/UBF/66/2017-18) AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.012, VISHALANAGARA, GIDHIHAL ROAD, HALE HUBBALLI-580030. 3. THE JOINT REGISTER OF CO-OP SOCIETIES, DAVA PANCHAYATH NYAYALAYA, KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS FEDERATION REGIONAL OFFICE, Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:691 WP No. 100113 of 2026 NO. I-9/10, DOLLARS COLONY, BEHIND NEW BUS STAND GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE HUBBALLI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SIR SIDDAPPA KAMBALI ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030. 5. SHRI. IMRAN GOUSDEMODDINA BARUDAWALE S/O. GOUSEMODDINA BARUDAWALE, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.012, VISHALANAGARA, GUDIHAL ROAD, HALE HUBBALLI-580030. 6. SMT. FARIDA BEGUM GOUSDEMODDINA BARUDAWALE, D/O. GOUSDEMODDIN BARUDAWALE, SINCE DEAD THE APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 AND RESPONDENT NO.3 ARE THE ONLY LEGAL HEIRS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4. 7. SRI. WASEEM N.MUCHALE S/O. NAZEER SAB, AGE. 38 YEARS, R/O. MOMEENA PLOT, GAVI ONI, P.B. ROAD, HALE HUBBALLI-580030. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRITE IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2025 ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN COP APPEAL NO.2005/2019 IN I. A. NO.III/05 UNDER ORDER 1 R 10 R/W SECTION 151 TO PROPOSED/IMPLEAD THE RESPONDENT NO.6. AND ALLOWED THE I.A. NO.III/2025 AND ETC.,. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:691 WP No. 100113 of 2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.III in Cop.Appeal.No.05/2019 dated 30.09.2025 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, the petitioner/proposed respondent No.6 is before this Court. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has entered into an agreement of sale with respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the property and the said agreement of sale was executed on 22.03.2016. When the petitioner insisted for execution of sale deed, they have denied the same and the property is mortgaged to the bank. As such, the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the appeal as his rights are involved. Hence, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.III under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC and sought to implead himself as respondent No.6 in the appeal. I.A.No.III came to be rejected by the Appellate Tribunal. 3. While dismissing the application, the Appellate Tribunal had observed that the agreement of sale in favour of the proposed party is an unregistered agreement of sale dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:691 WP No. 100113 of 2026 22.03.2016. The registered mortgage deed was executed on 22.04.2016 in favour of the Society. Apart from that, in the agreement of sale, it is the recital that the appellants have mortgaged the property in favour of the Society as a security to secure loan of Rs.30,00,000/-, till respondent Nos.1 and 2 repay the said amount, they would not sell the property in favour of third person. The Tribunal had observed that agreement of sale does not confer any right, title or interest over the property in question. The agreement of sale is executed in the year 2016, now after the lapse of nearly 9 years, the proposed respondent No.6 has filed this interlocutory application stating that he is interested in the property attached by respondent No.3 herein. The Tribunal had also observed that the proposed respondent No.6 was aware of the mortgage of the property in question in favour of respondent No.4 and still ventures to enter into an agreement of sale. When the property in question is mortgaged in favour of respondent No.4 and it is attached, since respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to repay the loan, the petitioner cannot get any right over the property by virtue of unregistered agreement of sale. Accordingly, the Tribunal had rejected the application. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:691 WP No. 100113 of 2026 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an agreement of sale is executed in his favour and he has right over the property. It is submitted that he is proper and necessary party to the proceedings. The Tribunal without considering all these aspects had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The petitioner has entered into an agreement of sale on 22.03.2016. There is a recital in the agreement of sale that the property is mortgaged to the bank and till the same is repaid, they will not execute the agreement of sale. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to repay the amount and the proceedings were initiated and an award was passed and the award was questioned before the Appellate Tribunal. At that stage, the petitioner came up with this application under Order I Rule 10 read with 151 of CPC. This Court has already extracted the observations of the Tribunal in the preceding paragraphs. The Tribunal had rightly held that the agreement of sale does not confer any title on the petitioner, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case where in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:691 WP No. 100113 of 2026 the agreement itself, there is a recital that the party will not execute any sale deed in favour of the proposed party till the amount is repaid to the bank. In the considered opinion of this Court, there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, this Court is passing the following: 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.: 70