Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 51839
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.9662 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M.K. RAMESHBABU,
S/O LATE KAVALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O SAMPIGE BEEDI,
MADHUGIRI TOWN,
MADHUGIR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 132.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
RANGAMMA,
W/O VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O T. GOLLAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK,
PINCODE – 572 129.
NOW R/AT SUDDEGUNTE VILLAGE,
KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 127.
2.
GANGAMMA,
W/O LATE GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
2
3.
SRINIVASA,
S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT T. GOLLAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK – 572 129.
4.
GOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE SHIVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
5.
PADMAVATHI,
W/O DODDAPPAIAH,
D/O LATE GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE
R/AT GIRIGOWDANAHALLI,
PURUVARA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 175.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
AND
SET
ASIDE
THE
IMPUGNED
DATED
12.04.2022 PASSED ON IA UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 BY THE HONBLE CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT KORATAGERE IN OS.NO.150/2020
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA UNDER ORDER I
RULE 10 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908 FILED BY
PETITIONER
IN
OS
NO.150/2020
(PRODUCED
AS
ANNEXURE-A TO THE INSTANT PETITION).
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the
petitioner – agreement holder has filed impleading
application to come on record in the partition suit
pending in O.S.No.150/2020.
The
learned
judge
has
rejected
the
impleading application on the ground that the
proposed purchaser of the joint family property is not
at all a necessary party to the partition suit.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and perused the order under challenge.
Petitioner is seeking leave to come on record by
claiming that he is an agreement holder and therefore
wants to come on record in pending partition between
his vendor and vendor's family members. In a
partition suit, all that the Court does is a formal
declaration of pre-existing rights of joint family
members and quantify the legitimate share of the
4
family members. The exercise of quantification of the
shares of joint family members can be effectively
done, even in the absence transferee or agreement
holder and their presence is not required for effective
adjudication of inter se dispute between the family
members.
Therefore, I am of the view that the
learned judge was justified in recording a finding that
the present petitioner is not a necessary party to the
present partition suit. The Court has also taken note
of the fact that the petitioner has benefit of an interim
injunction, in the pending suit for specific performance
of contract filed against the plaintiff, from alienating
the suit schedule property. If such a protection is
given,
then
question
of
hearing
petitioner
–
agreement holder would not arise. However, if the
plaintiff succeeds in the suit for specific performance
of contract, then he has every right to participate in
5
Final Decree Proceedings to workout his equitable
rights.
With
these
observations,
writ
petition
is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GRD
