IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.6686/2019 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
R.SHANKARA VEERAPPA S/O LATE RATHNA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT LAKSHMI NILAYA, ABBIGERE MAIN ROAD, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST, BENGALURU-560015 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI PARASHURAM R. HATTARAKIHAL, ADV.] AND:
1. SMT.V.SUNITHA W/O GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT SWARNA NILAYA, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST, BENGLALURU-560015 2. SMT.V.SHOBHA W/O S.KESHAVA BABU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.20, 2ND CROSS, GKM GARDEN, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT, BVR PURA POST, BENGALURU-97 3. SMT.V.MANJUNATH S/O G.VENKATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT BRINDAVANA NILAYA, CHURCH ROAD, KG HALLI, JALAHALLI WEST, BENGALURU-15 4. G.VENKATAPATHI W/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
5. V.PRAKASH S/O G.VENKATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
R-4 & R-5 ARE R/AT BRINDAVANA NILAYA, CHURCH ROAD, KG HALLI, JALAHALLI WEST, BENGALURU-15 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.1344/2012 ON I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN REJECTING THE SAID I.A. FOR IMPLEADING THE PETITIONER IN THE SAID SUIT, THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TO THIS W.P. AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION IA NO.2.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is directed against the order dated 04.07.2018 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.NO.1344/2012 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru ['Trial Court' for short].
2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed a suit in O.S.No.1455/2011 before the Trial Court seeking for the relief of partition against the defendant Nos.4 and 5 in respect of the suit property. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application [I.A.No.2] to get himself impleaded as a party to the proceedings contending that he is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property in view of the agreement of sale dated 24.11.2005 executed in his favour by the respondent No.4 herein. The same being rejected, this Writ Petition is filed by the applicant/proposed defendant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10[2] of the CPC sans any valid basis. No reasons are assigned by the Trial Court to arrive at a decision. The petitioner being an agreement holder of the suit property executed by the respondent No.4 in his favour, he is a proper and necessary party for the effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
5. In the case of Sri K.V.Jayaprakkash V/s.
Smt.Rathnamma and Others, reported in 2014 [4] KCCR 3475, this Court has observed thus:
“5. Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act dealing with sale categorically provides that a contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not create any interest in or charge on such property. Therefore, no interest in an immovable property is created in favour of ‘agreement holder’ under an agreement of sale. Since the agreement holder has no interest in the suit property, he cannot be impleaded in the suit for partition and possession where only presence of those persons who are connected by blood is required to adjudicate the rights. The preliminary decree declares only the rights of such parties in the immoveable property.
6. In the instant case, the impleading applicant is admittedly neither a family member nor claiming any interest in the immoveable property. He is a mere an agreement holder. He has not acquired any interest in the property covered under the agreement. His presence is therefore not required for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. That is what precisely the trial Court has held and there is no error in the order passed by the trial Court.”
6. It is well settled law that in a suit for partition and separate possession, the agreement holder of the suit property is not a necessary and proper party. Such a person becomes stranger to the partition suit proceedings. Admittedly the applicant/petitioner is not a member of the joint family nor conferred with any title over the suit properties.
7. Hence, the Trial Court rejecting the application [I.A.No.2] cannot be found fault with. No jurisdictional error found in the order impugned.
Writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NC