Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 47952
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J
Bharathi C – Appellant
Versus
Madhu Balani – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 8793 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sammith S
For the Respondents: Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, Srinivas Murthy
Legal heirs of a GPA holder claiming rights through an agreement to sell are not necessary parties in proceedings for revocation of a Letter of Administration; such rights must be pursued independently in a competent Civil Court.
Headnote:The petitioners, claiming to be legal representatives of a deceased GPA holder who held an agreement to sell the property, sought impleadment in a miscellaneous petition filed under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of a Letter of Administration. The trial court rejected the application, noting the deceased GPA holder had previously participated in the proceedings without asserting any independent right under an agreement to sell. The primary issue was whether the legal heirs of a GPA holder who claimed rights via an agreement to sell are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding for revocation of a Letter of Administration. The court reasoned that rights emanating from an agreement to sell must be adjudicated in a competent Civil Court and not in miscellaneous proceedings. Furthermore, the court held that the authority of a GPA holder terminates upon death and since the matter was already reserved for orders, impleadment at this stage served no purpose. Writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for impleadment by legal heirs of a gpa holder based on an agreement to sell. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's review of the gpa holder's prior participation and non-disclosure of the agreement to sell. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. distinction between miscellaneous succession proceedings and civil suits for agreement to sell. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. dismissal of the writ petition upholding the lower court's order. (Para 8) |
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MISC NO. 25109/2011 PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE LEARNED 74TH ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU. AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the impleading applicants who have challenged the order of the Court below passed on an application filed in I.A.No.1/22 under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The respondents No.1 to 5 have filed a Miscellaneous Petition in Misc.No.25109/2011 seeking revocation of the order dated 25.07.2008 passed in P&SC No.25012/2007. The respondents No.1 to 5 have specifically claimed that the Letter of Administration granted in P & SC No.25012/2007 is by playing fraud on the Court and therefore, they have sought revocation of Letter of Administration by presenting the Miscellaneous Petition under Section 263 of The Indian Succession Act . The said Miscellaneous proceedings is initiated against respondent No.6 who is the sole respondent in P&SC No.25012/2007.
3. The present petitioners intend to come on record on account of death of the original Power of Attorney holder, who was defending and contesting the miscellaneous proceedings on behalf of the sole respondent i.e., respondent No.6 before this Court. The present petitioners claim that they are the legal representatives of the original GPA holder viz., R.Jayaprakash, in whose favour the present respondent No.6 has executed an agreement to sell pertaining to the suit schedule property. The petitioners claim that agreement to sell is dated 15.10.2007. Therefore, basing their claim under the agreement to sell, they being legal representatives of deceased R.Jayaprakash, intend to come on record as proposed respondents No.2 to 4. The said application is rejected by the Court below. The learned Judge while rejecting the application has taken note of the fact that the first petitioner’s husband has participated in the proceedings as a GPA holder of sole respondent. Learned Judge has also found that GPA holder i.e., husband of first petitioner never took a contention that the sole respondent viz., R.K.Balani has executed an agreement to sell in respect of suit schedule properties. On this set of ground, learned Judge has proceeded to reject the application by recording a finding that petitioners herein are neither necessary party nor proper party to the proceedings pending in Misc. Petition No.25109/2011.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 5.
5. I have also given my anxious consideration to the judgments cited by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. The proceedings which are pending in Misc.No.25109/2011 is in respect of Letter of Administration granted in favour of respondent No.6 who is arrayed as respondent. It appears husband of first petitioner has not disclosed the transaction between himself and sole respondent, but however, under the alleged authorization by sole respondent has contested the proceedings as GPA holder. The material on record also indicates that the husband of first petitioner has cross-examined the respondents and has also led in ocular evidence and is cross-examined by respondent No.1 to 5. Now the matter is set in for orders on the miscellaneous petition pending in Misc.No.25109/2011.
6. On two counts, impleading applicants contentions have to be rejected. The petitioners ar
