IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.20750 OF 2017(GM-CPC) Between:
Sri.Narasimhaiha, S/o late Rangappa, Aged about 44 years, R/o Chowkenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk. …Petitioner (By Sri. M.Prakash, Advocate for Sri.Naik .N.R Advocate) And:
Sri.N.Rangaswamy, S/o late Nanjappa, Aged about 41 years, R/at No.864, Sri.Ramanjaneya Nilaya, Thotadaguddahalli Village, Dosanapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore-560073. ... Respondent This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order on IA No.4 filed in O.S.No.26/2016 Annx-E by the petitioner rejected on 11.04.2017 by the Addl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Gubbi and allow the application filed by the petitioner and call for records and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard Sri.Prakash.M learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Naik N R, learned counsel for petitioner. Perused the records.
2. First respondent herein has filed the suit O.S.No.26/2016 to direct the defendants to accept the balance sale consideration of Rs.1 lakh and to execute sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property as per terms of the agreement of sale dated 29.01.2015. Petitioner herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule X of CPC to get himself impleaded in the said suit contending inter-alia that he had contributed money for the purpose of purchasing the suit schedule property in the name of first defendant and as such, he has got right, title and interest in the suit schedule property. Hence, he contended that he is a necessary and proper party in the present suit.
3. Trial Court after noticing the objection raised to said plea and taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kasthuri Vs. Iyyamperumal reported in AIR 2005(6) SCC 733, has rightly held that applicant is neither necessary nor a proper party, since applicant was claiming an independent right, for which he will have to work out his right by initiating appropriate proceedings and he would not be a necessary or proper party. In fact, Hon’ble Apex Court in the subsequent judgment in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd and Others reported in AIR 2013 SC 2389 has also held that subsequent purchaser of the property with knowledge of earlier agreement can be added as a party i.e., where a registered instrument has come into existence in favour of such applicant. However, in the instant case petitioner claims that first defendant is his sister and he had advanced monies to her for purchasing the suit schedule property on his behalf.
4. There is no instrument evidencing the transaction between petitioner-impleading applicant and first defendant, so as to give rise for any title being vested in the applicant, so as to enable him to get himself impleaded in the suit in question. By permitting the applicant to come on record, the scope of the suit for specific performance would get enlarged and as trial Court has rightly refused to entertain the application by dismissing the same under the impugned order. There is no error committed by the trial Court calling for interference.
Hence, writ petition is rejected as devoid of merits.
SD/- JUDGE dn/-