LAKSHMAMMA Vs. P.K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed O.S.No.1096/2010 against respondents 3 to 5 contending that the said respondents are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 1 acre 22 guntas in Sy.No.67/2 Panathur village, Bangalore East Taluk and that the said property was agreed to be purchased by the respondents 1 and 2 for a total consideration of Rs.29,25,000/- and sought for a relief of specific performance of the said contract dated 25.2.2004. In the said suit proceedings, the petitioner herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC contending that she is the co-owner of suit schedule property entitled to 50% share therein. The said application was contested by the respondents 1 and 2. After hearing, the learned trial Judge dismissed the said application against which this writ petition is filed.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner/proposed defendant was the legal heir of Siddanahalli Muniyappa, to whom the suit schedule property originally belonged to and as such she was a necessary party for the effective adjudication of the matter, the defendants (respondents 3 to 5) have entered into an agreement with respondents 1 and 2 to sell the suit schedule property without her knowledge and even as per the RTC extract she is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the learned trial Judge without appreciating the same has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish her relationship with respondents 3 to 5 and also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs NANAK BUILDERS AND INVESTORS P. LTD. AND ORS, 2013 AIR(SC) 2389 and BALURAM vs P.CHELLATHANGAM & ORS. decided on 10.12.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos.10940-10941 of 2014.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 argued that the petitioner is a stranger to the suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against respondents 3 to 5 for specific performance of the contract dated 25.2.2004, the petitioner is trying to enlarge the scope of the suit which is not permissible under law as in a suit for specific performance between the parties, the right over a title of a joint family property between petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 could not be adjudicated, which totally diverts the issue pending for adjudication between the parties. Learned counsel supported the order passed by the trial Judge and also placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in KASTURI vs IYYAMPERUMAL AND OTHERS, 2005 AIR(SC) 2813 THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs NANAK BUILDERS AND INVESTORS P. LTD. AND ORS, 2013 AIR(SC) 2389 BHARAT KARSONDAS THAKKAR VS M/s KIRAN CONSTRUCTION CO. AND ORS, 2008 13 SCC 658.