Dismissed

Smt.Lalitha W/O Krishna Huddar v. Basappa S/O Irappa Kothin

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2020WP/147482/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting an application to implead the petitioner as a necessary party in a specific performance suit. The court held that the petitioner, being a third party to the contract, is not a necessary party and the respondent is not forced to join them.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order rejecting the impleading application is dismissed.

Smt.Lalitha W/O Krishna Huddar Vs Basappa S/O Irappa… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 06^{T H} DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

W.P.NO.147482/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT.LALITHA W/O KRISHNA HUDDAR, AGE : 48 YEARS, OCCN: HOMEMAKER, R/O : KONNUR-587 121, TQ: JAMKHANDI.

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SHRI PRASHANT S.KADADEVAR, ADV.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

BASAPPA S/O IRAPPA KOTHIN, AGE : MAJOR, OCCN: BUSINESS, R/O : DESAI WADA, JAMKHANDI-587301, TQ: JAMKAHNDI.

¶12

PRAKASH S/O RAMAPPA KONNUR, AGE : MAJOR, OCCN: AGRICULTURE, R/O CHINGUNDI, OPP. LAKSHMI GUDI, JAMKHANDI-587 301, TQ: JAMKHANDI.

¶13

..RESPONDENTS

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A.NO.12 DATED 02.03.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.160/ 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT JAMKHANDI (ANNEXURE-F)

¶15

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

: ORDER :

¶18

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2020 passed in O.S.No.160/2016 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, this writ petition is filed.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that, the 1^st respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.160/2016 for seeking relief of specific performance of contract against the 2^nd respondent before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi. The petitioner is the sister of the 2^nd respondent. She has filed a suit in O.S.No.136/2019 for partition and separate possession before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi. The suit schedule property in O.S.No.160/2016 is also the subject matter in O.S.No.136/2019 and the said suit in O.S.No.136/2019 is pending.

¶20

¶21

The 1^st respondent claims that the 2^nd respondent has entered into an agreement of sale and agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the 1^st respondent and executed an agreement of sale. The 2^nd respondent did not comply the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale. The 1^st respondent has filed a suit for the relief of specific performance of contract. In the said suit, the petitioner has filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC” for short) for impleading her as defendant No.2 in said suit as petitioner is necessary and proper party. The 1^st respondent filed objections to the said application. The Trial Court after considering the material on record has rejected the application. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, has filed this writ petition.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has filed a suit for partition and separate possession in

¶23

¶24

O.S.No.136/2019 in respect of the suit schedule property and the 2^nd respondent has no right to enter into an agreement of sale with the 1^st respondent has the suit schedule property is an ancestral property of petitioner and 2^nd respondent. If any judgment is passed in a suit for specific performance of contract, the right of the petitioner will be infringed. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party.

¶25

I have heard the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the records.

¶26

The 1^st respondent has filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the 2^nd respondent alleging that the 2^nd respondent has agreed to sell the suit schedule property and the 2^nd respondent failed to comply the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale. The 1^st respondent filed a suit for specific performance. The petitioner filed an application for impleading

¶27

¶28

on the ground that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property and the petitioner has got a right in the said property. The 2^nd respondent has no right to execute an agreement of sale in favour of the 1^st respondent.

¶29

That in the suit for specific performance of contract, the dispute is in between the plaintiff and defendant as there is a privity of contract between them as the petitioner is not a party to the contract. The petitioner being a third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added in a suit for specific performance of contract. Because the petitioner is not a necessary party as there was no semblance of right to some relief against the party to the contract. In a suit for specific performance of contract, the lis is between the vendor and the person in whose favour agreement to sell is executed shall only be gone into and it is not open to the Court to decide, whether any parties have acquired any title or

¶30

¶31

possession of a contractual property. That the respondent who has filed a suit for specific performance of contract to sell even after the notice of claim of title by the third party does not want to join the petitioner in the pending suit. It is always done at the risk of the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent cannot be forced to join as a party defendant in such a suit.

¶32

In view of the above said discussion,

¶33

the petitioner is neither necessary party nor a proper party, the Trial Court after considering the entire material on record, has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner.

¶34

I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Smt.Lalitha W/O Krishna Huddar v. Basappa S/O Irappa Kothin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Lalitha W/O Krishna Huddar v. Basappa S/O Irappa Kothin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

One Roof Solutions Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Amaragundappa S/O Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Maharudreshwar S/O Mrutyunjaya Sheelavantar Vs the Secretary

Shri.Rangappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani Vs Assistant Commissioner

Shri.Roopesh Shrikant Vyas Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Yamanappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani Vs Sri.Rangappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani