G Prasanna Vs Malashri — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

G Prasanna Vs Malashri — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with observations; no interference with the trial Court's impleadment order, which stands sustained; petitioner left free to place the JDA, conversion order, revenue records and sketch at trial to establish that the JDA schedule is distinct from the property claimed by the plaintiff.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order dated 29.10.2021 allowing impleadment of the petitioner as defendant No.7 in O.S.No.501/2015 (specific performance suit) is sustainable, i.e., whether the petitioner, holder of a Joint Development Agreement over 3.12 guntas in Sy.No.72/12, is a necessary and proper party to the suit.

Court's answer

Since the plaintiff specifically asserted that her agreement of sale covers a portion of the land falling within the Joint Development Agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3, and the JDA property in new Sy.No.72/12 (old Sy.No.72/8) is the subject matter of the suit, the petitioner is prima facie a successor in interest of the property and is required to contest the suit and be continued as a defendant therein; the impleadment order therefore stands.

Key takeaways

The petitioner's contention that the property claimed by respondent No.1/plaintiff is distinct from that covered by the JDA was not decided; the court directed that this question is required to be adjudicated in the suit (at trial).obiter¶54
It is open to the petitioner to place relevant material, including the Joint Development Agreement, conversion order, revenue records and sketch, during the course of trial to indicate that the schedule to the JDA dated 16.09.2015 is distinct from the property claimed by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale.obiter¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — Impleadment of additional defendant — Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC — Specific performance suit O.S.No.501/2015 based on agreement of sale dated 05.05.2010 — Plaintiff sought impleadment of the present petitioner (holder of a Joint Development Agreement over 3.12 guntas in new Sy.No.72/12, old Sy.No.72/8, Siddapura Village, Varthur Hobli) and one V. Nagesh as defendant Nos.7 and 8; trial Court allowed by order dated 29.10.2021 — HELD: the plaintiff having specifically asserted that her agreement covers a portion of land falling within the JDA, which is the subject matter of the suit, the petitioner is prima facie a successor in interest and required to be continued as a defendant; the impleadment order sustained — Contention that the JDA schedule (dated 16.09.2015) is distinct from the property claimed by the plaintiff expressly left open to be adjudicated at trial, with liberty to the petitioner to place the JDA, conversion order, revenue records and sketch — Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution disposed of accordingly (Single Judge, Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.).

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.23294/2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

G. PRASANNA S/O T.N. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O NO.478, IST MAIN B BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT BENGALURU-560037.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed (BY SRI. P.N. HARISH, ADV.,) by RUPA V AND: Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. MALASHRI

W/O R. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O H NO.140, SIDDAPURA WHITEFIELD ROAD RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560066.

SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

MALLESHA GOWDA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

VYAJAYANTHI MALA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021

HC-KAR

ROHINI D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

UMAMAHESHWARI D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

SARASWATHI D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 7 ARE R/OF SIDDAPURA VILLAGE RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST BEHIND SHRI RAM BAKERY BUILDING NEXT TO SHELL PETROL BUNK BENGALURU-560066.

V. NAGESH S/O J. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O CHIKKATIRUPATHI VILLAGE LAKKURU HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. GOPI KRISHNA D, ADV., FOR SRI. SHARAN B.T. ADV., FOR R1 V/O DTD:01.12.2022 NOTICE TO R2-R8 ARE D/W)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2021 ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.501/2015 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND THEREBY DISMISS THE IA NO.2 MADE BY THE R1 IN O.S.NO.501/2015 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-C & ETC.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.10.2021 passed on IA No. 2 in O.S.No.501/2015 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the trial Court’ )

Sri.P.N.Harish, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 filed the suit in O.S.No.501/2015 for specific performance. In the said suit, the petitioner was not a party. Thereafter, an application for impleadment was filed by respondent No.1, which came to be allowed by the trial Court without assigning any reasons and without appreciating the documents placed by the petitioner. It is submitted that as per the plaint averment the plaintiff claims to be an agreement holder for 2 guntas of land in Sy.No.72/12 and Sy.No.72/13 and the petitioner has purchased 3.12 guntas

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021

HC-KAR

in Sy.No.72/12 and 2 guntas in Sy.No.72/13 is purchased by defendant No.7, which can be seen from the records and the sketch. Hence the proposed defendant No.7 may be necessary and proper party to the suit for specific performance and not the petitioner. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

Per contra, Sri.Gopi Krishna D, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the plaint averment as well as the agreement of sale clearly refers two survey numbers and in one of the survey number, the petitioner has purchased the property to an extent of 3.12 guntas, hence, he being the successor in interest of the property, is a necessary and proper party to the suit, which has been rightly considered by the trial Court and allowed the application. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021

HC-KAR

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

The respondent No.1 has filed the suit in O.S.No.501/2015 for the relief of specific performance of contract i.e., agreement of sale dated 05.05.2010. In the said suit, the respondent No.1 initially arrayed the parties to the agreement as defendants. The material on record indicates that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to implead the present petitioner as well as one Sri.V.Nagesh as defendant Nos.7 and 8 in the said suit. The trial Court under the impugned order, allowed the said application.

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has entered into a Joint Development Agreement (‘JDA’) in respect of 3.12 guntas of land in

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021

HC-KAR

Sy.No.72/12 i.e., 4083.73 sq.ft. The perusal of the JDA indicates that the property is in Sy.No.72/12 (old Sy.No.72/8) of Siddapura Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru, which is the subject matter of the suit. Further, the plaint averments indicate that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is claiming to have an agreement of sale in respect of 2 guntas of land on the northern side of land in Sy.No.72/8 and 72/6, more precisely in new Sy.No.72/12 and 72/13. When the respondent No.1/plaintiff in the suit has specifically made an assertion that she is the agreement holder of a portion of the land which falls in the JDA entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is required to contest the suit. Prima-facie it appears that the petitioner is a successor in interest of the property in view of the JDA, hence the petitioner is required to be continued as a defendant in the suit.

Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that

the property claimed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff is

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26184 W.P. No.23294/2021

HC-KAR

distinct from that of the JDA is concerned, the same is required to be adjudicated in the suit.

It is open for the petitioner to place the relevant

material including the Joint Development Agreement, conversion order, revenue records and sketch to indicate that the schedule to the JDA dated 16.09.2015 is distinct from that of the property claimed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff under the agreement of sale during the course of trial.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ

petition is disposed of .

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

BSR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32