Dismissed¶47

Sri. G Sambasiva Rao v. Sri. T Jayaram

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2025WP/27302/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Justice Lalitha Kanneganti; WP No. 27302 of 2019 (GM-CPC) decided 07.02.2025; Article 227; impleading of parties; Order I Rule 10 CPC; Section 151 CPC; proper and necessary parties; counterclaim for specific performance; suit for permanent injunction; relinquishment deed; registered document bars contrary claim by family members; O.S.No.6271/2016; I.A.No.8 dated 01.06.2019; XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-41) Bengaluru; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The persons sought to be impleaded (the plaintiff's mother and sisters) are not proper and necessary parties to the suit, since they have already executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. ¶41

Sri. G Sambasiva Rao Vs Sri. T Jayaram — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff's mother and sisters, who have already executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, are proper and necessary parties to the suit (in which the defendants seek specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the plaintiff's father), and consequently whether the trial Court rightly dismissed I.A.No.8 seeking their impleading.

¶41

Court's answer

¶41

Ratio / Principle

As the relinquishment deed is on record, the family members cannot say contrary to what they have relinquished by way of a registered document; hence their impleading would serve no purpose for the defendants.

¶41

Key takeaways

This Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court dismissing I.A.No.8.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - O.S.No.6271/2016, XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-41), Bengaluru: suit by respondent No.1 for permanent injunction; defendants filed counterclaim for specific performance of an agreement to sell allegedly executed by the plaintiff's father - I.A.No.8 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC by the defendants to implead the plaintiff's mother and sisters as defendants - trial Court dismissed the application on 01.06.2019 since the proposed impleadees had already executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff and had no interest in the suit schedule property - High Court holds they are not proper and necessary parties to the suit and that, the relinquishment deed being on record, family members cannot say contrary to what they have relinquished by way of a registered document - finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order of the trial Court - Writ Petition dismissed; all IAs in the Writ Petition closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5705 WP No. 27302 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 27302 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. G. SAMBASIVA RAO, SON OF VARADIAHA, AGE ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. GURRAM SUBHA DEVI, WIFE OF C SAMBASHIVA RAO, AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING R/AT NO.17/2, CLUB HOUSE, VANI VILAS ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶11

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. GIRIDHAR S.V, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. T. JAYARAM S/O C. THADEEPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, I CROSS, KOTHANUR DINNE, J.P. NAGAR, 8TH PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 076.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

SMT. RAJAMMA W/O LATE THADEPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:5705 WP No. 27302 of 2019

¶20

RESIDING AT NO.1, I CROSS, KOTHANUR DINNE, J P NAGAR, 8TH PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 076.

¶21

SMT. VIJAYA DAUGHTER OF LATE THADEPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1117, 19TH MAIN, 2ND PHASE, J P NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶22

SMT. PUSHPA VENKATESH, DAUGHTER OF LATE THADEEPA, WIFE OF SRI. R. VENKATESH, RESIDING AT NO.3, 9TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, G.G. ROAD, EJIPURA, BANGALORE - 560 047.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-41) AT BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.6271/2016 CULMINATING IN THE ORDER IMPUGNED AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:5705 WP No. 27302 of 2019

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.6271/2016 dated 01.06.2019 by the XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions judge (CCH-41) at Bengaluru, the defendants who have filed the counterclaim seeking relief of Specific Performance, are before this Court.

¶32

Respondent No.1 herein has filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants then the defendants have filed a counterclaim seeking Specific Performance. Now the present I.A.No.8 is filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC praying for impleading proposed persons as defendants. It is the case of the defendants that the father of the plaintiff had executed an agreement to sell. He is no more and succeeded by the plaintiff, his mother and two daughters. As the mother and two daughters are not on record, he filed this application to implead them. The plaintiff had filed his objections stating that the mother and the sisters have already executed a relinquishment deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:5705 WP No. 27302 of 2019

¶35

When they have nothing to do with this suit schedule property, their presence or impleading them in the suit is not necessary and accordingly prays to dismiss the application. The Court by way of impugned order, considering the fact that already a relinquishment deed is executed and they have no interest in the property, has dismissed the application.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendants submits that the Court when an application is filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, Court ought to have issued a notice to the proposed parties. Though it is stated by the plaintiff that a relinquishment deed is executed, if once they come on record, notice is issued and once they filed their objections to the application, then it would be in the interest of the defendants and it would also preclude the impleading parties from raising any further grounds, in case the defendants are successful in obtaining the relief of Specific Performance. Learned counsel submits that the Court had not considered all these aspects.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ plaintiff submits that the Court had rightly considered the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:5705 WP No. 27302 of 2019

¶40

application and rightly held that his mother and sisters are not proper and necessary parties as they have executed the relinquishment deed. He submits that only to drag on the proceedings, the present application is filed.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The defendants who are the petitioners herein have filed the counterclaim seeking Specific Performance of the agreement of sale. According to them, the father of the plaintiff had executed the agreement and being the legal heirs, his children and wife should be the proper and necessary parties to the suit. In respect of the suit schedule property, an agreement of sale is executed and the parties whom he wants to implead, have already executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff. In those circumstances, the Court had rightly held that they are not proper and necessary parties to the suit. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is without any basis and the relinquishment deed itself is on record, the family members cannot say contrary to what they have relinquished by way of a registered document. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:5705 WP No. 27302 of 2019

¶44

passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the

¶45

following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47