Shri B T Bore Gowda vs Shri T C Lobo on 25 August, 2014

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Shri B T Bore Gowda vs Shri T C Lobo on 25 August, 2014

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                                1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                     BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

       WRIT PETITION No.45956 OF 2013 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

Shri. B.T. Bore Gowda,
Advocate,
Son of Late Shri. Thimme Gowda,
Hindu, aged about 60 years,
Residing at No.607/4, 3rd D Cross,
2nd Stage, HRBR Layout,
Bangalore - 560 087.
                                        ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. M. Erappa Reddy, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Shri. T.C.Lobo,
       Son of Shri. Pete Joseph Lobo,
       (since deceased by his
       Legal representatives)

a.     Miss. Lydia Cathrine,
       Wife of Late T.C.Lobo,
       aged about 60 years,
       residing at No.602,
       Shradda Apartments,
                                2




     Upper Govindnagar,
     Mained (E)
     Mumbai - 400 097.

b.   Mrs. Nooren Lobo Keswani,
     Daughter of Late T.C.Lobo,
     aged about 50 years,
     residing at No.602,
     Shradda Apartmetns,
     Upper Govindnagar,
     Mained (E)
     Mumbai - 400 097.

c.   Smt. Theresa Lobo,
     Daughter of Late T.C.Lobo,
     aged about 45 years,
     No.601, 4th Cross,
     1st A Main Road,
     Doddabanaswadi,
     Bangalore - 560 043.

2.   Smt. Rohini Poonacha,
     Wife of Shri. Poonacha,
     Aged about 55 years,
     Residing at No.309,
     5th Main, 3rd Cross,
     Sadanandanagar,
     NGEF East,
     Bangalore - 560 038.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. S. Shaker Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri. K. Srihari, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 (a to c) )
                                  3




      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by
the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, CCH-29, Mayo Hall,
Bangalore in O.S.No.1709/2005 on 5.8.2013 as per Annexure-
D.

      This Writ Petition is coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:

                            ORDER

For the reasons stated, the order dated 22.07.2014 is recalled.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits. It is the petitioner's case that he is an agreement holder in respect of certain property. Therefore, when the agreement was negated by the vendor, the petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance. It now transpires that the proposed defendant claiming to have obtained a memorandum of understanding in respect of the very property of the petitioner, sought to implead herself. The court below having allowed such an application, the petitioner is before this Court.

The question whether such a party who is a stranger to the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent could implead herself is no longer res integra. If a third party claiming an independent title to the property seeks to implead herself or himself, it is not permissible; if the party is claiming under the very agreement holder, the legal position is otherwise, as laid down in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. and Others ( AIR 2013 SC 2389), and hence, whether the said proposed defendant has a right which could be established or not, is secondary. The point whether she can implead herself as a party would have to be answered in the affirmative. There is no infirmity in the order of the court below.

The petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE KS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court