NARAYANAMMA Vs. H.M. KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are stated to be as follows:

(2.) It is the petitioner's case that she is the plaintiff in suit filed against respondents nos.1 to 3 herein, in OS 2289/2007 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bangalore Rural District. The suit is for specific performance of contract in respect of an agreement to sell dated 13.7.2006. It is alleged that in order to deprive her of the property, respondents no.1 to 3 had colluded with respondent no.4 and a suit was said to have been filed, subsequent to the suit of the petitioner, in OS 2289/2007 by respondent no.4 against respondents 1 to 3, seeking specific performance of contract in respect of the same property, which is the subject matter of the petitioner's suit, under an agreement purported to have been executed on 20.1.2006. It is stated that the respondents had suppressed the fact of the pendency of the petitioner's suit and had entered into a compromise in the later suit, to which the petitioner was not a party and it is learnt by the petitioner in retrospect that a compromise decree has also been drawn up in the later suit, as on 20.6.2008.

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate, Shri G.Krishnamurthy, appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the subsequent suit having been facilitated by respondents no.1 to 3 and having enabled respondent no.4 to have the suit decreed, was blatantly collusive and mischievous and was possible only on account of the deliberate suppression of the fact of pendency of the petitioner's suit for a similar relief in respect of the same property. Therefore, it was but logical that as a natural consequence of the apparently collusive actions of the respondents, that the fourth respondent be impleaded as a defendant, as the property which is the subject matter of the petitioner's suit has been transferred in favour of the said respondent during the pendency of the suit he is a proper and necessary party, without whose presence the suit cannot be adjudicated completely.