The High Court heard a writ petition seeking to quash a Trial Court order allowing an injunction to implead persons claiming ownership of the suit property. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no reason to interfere as the impleadment appeared proper.
The writ petition was dismissed and the impugned order allowing impleadment was affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:23078 WP No. 12871 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 12871 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
AIJAZ AHMED SIDDIQU S/O LATE FAIROZ AHMED SIDDIQUI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.374/1, BADAMAKHAN BEHIND GOVERNMENT I T I N.R. MOHALLA MYSORE-7
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
BANGALURU-560 051
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S/O LATE MOHAMMED ABDUL KAREEM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.8 BENSON ROAD, BENSON TOWN BANGALORE-46
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SYED KHADER NAWAZ, ADVOCATE FOR R1
NC: 2024:KHC:23078 WP No. 12871 of 2021
SRI.BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-G THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2020 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI ON I.A.NO.11 IN O.S.NO.499/2016 AND REJECT THE SAID APPLICATION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in O.S.No.499/2016 on I.A.No.11 dated 20.03.2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, whereby the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) R/W Section 151 of CPC file by the one who claims to be the owner of the property is allowed.
has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the interim application, they have stated several properties which were purchased by the father, as such it is stated that they are the proper and necessary parties to the suit. Then objections are filed by the plaintiff to the said application. The Trial court after considering the respective cases and also after hearing the parties, the court has observed that in the suit filed for specific performance of a contract, the parties to the agreement are proper and necessary parties. Apart from them, none of the persons are proper and necessary parties. But however in the case on hand, the applicants/ implead petitioners prima-facie shows that they are the absolute owners of item No.2 of the schedule property. If it is so, then the defendant will not have a right to execute the sale agreement, unless they are impleaded and made as defendants in the suit, it would give rise to multiplicity of proceedings and further they are necessary parties to the suit. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner/plaintiff is before this court.
NC: 2024:KHC:23078 WP No. 12871 of 2021
as defendants to the suit claiming ownership of the property, no documents is filed in support of the same. All the documents which are filed before the court do not disclose the names of implead party or the father or the grandfather. When they have nothing to do with the suit schedule properties, they cannot be impleaded in the suit and the Trial court failed to consider all these aspects.
NC: 2024:KHC:23078 WP No. 12871 of 2021
any matter of right or title, the defendant has executed the agreement of Sale in favour of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the implead parties are proper and necessary parties to the suit. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents do not prima-facie disclose that
he is the owner of the property. This court is not inclined to go in to those aspects at this stage and when the proposed parties
says that he is the owner of the property, the burden lies on him to prove the same by adducing necessary evidence. At this stage, looking at the prima facie case, this court is of the view that the court below had rightly allowed the petitioner under
NC: 2024:KHC:23078 WP No. 12871 of 2021
Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC and this court finds no reasons to interfere.
pending I.A’s if any shall stand closed.
SD/JUDGE
TS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for impleadment of persons claiming ownership of the suit property under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC was rightly allowed by the Trial Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
AIJAZ AHMED SIDDIQU
MODI NAWAB
NASIR AHAMED
SHAKIR AMAMED
ZAHIR AHMED
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
