Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj vs Hanamanth on 4 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436
WP No. 101389 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 101389 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJ
S/O. GIRAMALLA KAKHANDAKI,
AGE: 31 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RABAKAVI,
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587314.
2. BOURAVVA
W/O. GIRAMALLA KAKHANDAKI,
AGE: 31 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
R/O. RABAKAVI,
KATTIMANI
Location: High
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench DIST. BAGALKOT-587314.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HANAMANTH
S/O. SIDDAPPA KAKHANDAKI,
AGE: 42 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436
WP No. 101389 of 2022
HC-KAR
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RABAKAVI,
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587314.
2. GIRIMALLA
S/O. SIDDAPPA KAKHANDAKI,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RABAKAVI,
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587314.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.I
DATED 03/09/2020 IN O.S.NO.16/2020 PENDING IN ON THE
FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, JR.DN.BANAHATTI PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436
WP No. 101389 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ in nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ and quash the impugned order
passed on I.A. No.I dated 03/09/2020 in O.S.
No.16/2020 pending on the file of the Civil Judge
Jr. Dn. Banahatti produced at Annexure-G, in the
interest of justice and equity.
ii. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the
case."
2. Sri.Mahantesh R.Patil, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 filed a suit for relief
of specific performance of the contract against respondent No.2.
In the said suit, the petitioners herein who are the wife and son
of respondent No.2 filed an application for impleadment which
came to be rejected by the trial Court. It is submitted that the
suit filed by respondent No.1 for relief of specific performance is
a collusive suit which was filed only with an intention to defeat
the right of the wife and son of respondent No.2 who are the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436
HC-KAR
petitioners herein. It is further submitted that the petitioners are
the coparceners of the Hindu undivided property and they are
the necessary and proper parties to adjudicate the suit filed by
respondent No.1. It is submitted that if the petitioners are not
arrayed as parties in the suit, their interest in the property would
be adversely affected. In support of his contention, he placed
reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of NAGAPPA
AND ORS. v. VARADA PRAKASH AND ORS. 1 Thus, he seeks
to allow the appeal by permitting the petitioners to contest the
proceedings.
3. Per contra, Sri.S.C.Bhute, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.1/plaintiff supports the impugned order of the
trial Court and submits that the trial court taking note of the fact
that the petitioners are strangers to the contract and being the
third parties, recorded a finding that they cannot be arrayed as
parties to the proceedings. In support of his contention, he
placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of GURMIT SINGH BHATIA v. KIRAN KANT ROBINSON2
and in the case of BHARAT KARSONDAS THAKKAR v.
In RSA No.6081/2010 disposed off on 12.10.2023
AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 3577
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436
HC-KAR
M/S.KIRAN CONSTRUCTION CO. & ORS.3. It is also
submitted that the suit filed by the petitioners for partition
against respondent No.1 is dismissed. Thus, he seeks to dismiss
the appeal.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available
on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced.
5. The respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.16/2020
for a relief of specific performance of contract against respondent
No.2 based on the agreement of sale dated 13.08.2014. In the
said suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule
10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
seeking for impleadment on the ground that they are the wife
and son of respondent No.2 and they being the coparceners to
the joint family property are entitled for share. The trial Court
taking note of the submissions and pleadings, rejected the said
application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
2008 (2) CIVIL COURT CASES 561 (S.C.)
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436
HC-KAR
decisions has categorically held that in a suit for specific
performance a stranger to the agreement of sale cannot be
impleaded as a party to the suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of KASTURI v. UYYAMPERUMAL AND ORS.4 has held
that there must be a right to some relief against such party in
respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings or the
proposed applicants should show that no effective decree can be
passed in their absence. In the case on hand, the petitioners are
claiming that they are wife and son of respondent No.2 and the
property in question is a joint family property. Admittedly, the
petitioners are strangers to the agreement in question. Hence,
they cannot be arrayed as parties to the proceedings. In
addition, it is also noticed that the petitioners filed
O.S.No.193/2014 before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.),
Banahatti for relief of partition and separate possession which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 03.04.2025. In view
of the said fact also, they cannot be termed as a proper and
necessary parties in the suit. The contention of the petitioners is
that the petitioners have filed an appeal and if they succeed in
the appeal, they may be permitted to file an application. Such
(2005) 6 SCC 733
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436
HC-KAR
prayer of the petitioners cannot be considered at this stage. If
the petitioners succeed in the appeal filed against the judgment
and decree in O.S.No.193/2014, it is open for them to avail any
remedies available under law.
6. The decision of this Court in the case of NAGAPPA
referred supra relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners
has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case for
a simple reason that in the said case, the property is a joint
family property and this Court framed the question of law as to
whether the decree for specific performance of contract in
respect of the undivided share can be granted in the absence of
relief of partition in view of the bar contained under Section
22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In the case on hand, the
suit filed by the petitioners for relief of partition and separate
possession which came to be dismissed and their rights with
regard to the property not adjudicated and admittedly, they are
the strangers to the contract. Hence, such a contention has no
merit for consideration. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any
error or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11436
HC-KAR
calling for interference in this petition. Hence, the writ petition is
devoid of merits and the same is rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
RH /CT-AN
