MALLAPPA Vs. SHANKREMMA @ GOURAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the plaintiff of a suit for specific performance [O.S. No.73 of 2013 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Muddebihal], has questioned the order dated 02.03.2015 passed on an interlocutory application [I.A. No. I], whereby the prayer made by the respondent Nos.2 to 17 seeking to be impleaded as party defendants in the said suit has been allowed by the Trial Court on the ground that they are necessary parties to the suit.

(2.) In the suit aforesaid, the plaintiff-petitioner has sought a decree against the sole defendant-respondent No. 1 for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 16.10.2008 in respect of the suit land which, according to the plaintiff-petitioner, was allotted to the husband of the defendant in family partition under the registered partition deed dated 27.10.1970; and the defendant, being the sole heir, succeeded to the suit land on the demise of her husband on 18.09.200 The plaintiff has alleged that the suit land was agreed to be sold by the defendantrespondent No. 1, as being the absolute owner thereof, for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-; and the plaintiff petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- towards earnest money. It is alleged that when the plaintiff-petitioner insisted on the defendant-respondent No. 1 to receive the balance consideration and to execute the sale deed, she avoided and finally refused to do so on 23.10.2013.

(3.) Interestingly, the defendant, in her written statement, has admitted the relevant plaint averments and has agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Subsequently, on 01.01.2014, the parties filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.