Writ Petition No. 106414 of 2023 · Karnataka High Court

2. SMT. NEELAVATI W/O. MANOHAR KUMBAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. ADIHUDI, TQ: JAMKHANDI DIST: BAGALKOT-587330.

3. SMT. VIDYASHRI W/O. MALLAPPA KUMBAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SOKANADAGI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587303.

4. SMT. ASHWINI W/O. DEEPAK KUMBAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GALAGALI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587117.

5. NAGARAJ S/O. DEEPAK KUMBAR, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. GALAGALI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587117, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER i.e. PETITIONER NO.2 SMT. NEELAVATI W/O. DEEPAK KUMBAR. (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, SRI. RAHUL S. KUNTOJI, SMT. DIVYA J. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATES) AND:

BHUJANG S/O. RAMAPPA GUGGARI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2937 WP No. 106414 of 2023 R/O. ADIHUDI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587330.

MANOHAR S/O. LAXMAN KAMBAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ADIHUDI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587330. (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADV. FOR R1; R2-SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY SUCH WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI, ON IA NO. IV IN OS NO. 147/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the ORDER following reliefs: to quash 1) Issue a writ of certiorari or any such writ or direction the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, on IA No. IV in OS No. 147/2018 vide Annexure-E, in the interest of justice and equity. 2) Pass such other order or orders which this Hon’ble court deems fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2937 WP No. 106414 of 2023

2. Respondent No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.147/2018 against respondent No.2 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 17.02.2014. In the said suit, the petitioners, who claim to be the wife and children of defendant No.1 had filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to implead themselves, which application came to be numbered as I.A.No.4. The said application came to be opposed by the plaintiff and it is in that background that vide the impugned order dated 04.08.2023, the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, dismissed the application. It is challenging the said order that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

Submission of Sri. Girish Yadwad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the property, which is the subject matter of the agreement of sale dated

17.02.2014 is a joint family property, in which the petitioners have an interest and as such, any decree passed in the said suit may be enforced against the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2937 WP No. 106414 of 2023 petitioners without an opportunity being available to the petitioners to defend the suit and to make known their interest in the property. It is in that background, he submits that the impleading application was filed and as such, an opportunity is required to be provided to the petitioners to participate in the said proceedings by this Court interceding and reversing the finding of the trial court.

Having heard Sri. Girish Yadwad, learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the order passed by the trial Court, it is seen that the trial Court has come to a conclusion that the petitioners are strangers to the agreement and has taken into consideration that, once earlier another application had been filed by the wife of brother of defendant to be impleaded, which came to be rejected on 22.02.2023, challenging which a Writ Petition No.101802/2023 has been filed. The said writ petition was also dismissed by this Court on

21.03.2023 and on that basis, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that, in a suit for specific performance, - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2937 WP No. 106414 of 2023 it is only the agreement holders and executants, who are necessary parties and the persons who are not parties to the agreement, are not necessary parties.

I find no infirmity in the said order of the trial Court inasmuch as the plaintiff having chosen to file a suit only against the defendant, any claim of the plaintiff can only be in reference to and restricted to any alleged share that the defendant may have in the said property and the decree cannot be binding on the share, if any, of the petitioners in the said joint family property. That being so, the plaintiffs having chosen to oppose the application for impleading filed by the petitioners herein despite having been put to notice of their claim and interest, it is clear that the plaintiff doed not wish to prosecute the suit and/or lay any claim on the impleading applicants and/or their share in the property subject matter of the agreement of sale and as such, any decree, if at all passed in favour of the plaintiff, cannot be enforced against the petitioners herein. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2937 WP No. 106414 of 2023

In that view of the matter, there being no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court, the petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- JUDGE YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 143