Karnataka High Court
Mr. Harish Puthran vs Sri Rathnakar Shetty on 2 February, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5992
WP No. 22937 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.22937 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. HARISH PUTHRAN
S/O LATE N H SALIAN
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT NO.SRI.HARSHA, HARSHA NAGARA,
OPP: VIJAYA BANK, NEAR NH-66
MULKI, D.K-574154.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PREKSHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI RATHNAKAR SHETTY
SINCE DECEASED
REPRESENTED BY HIS SON/GPA HOLDER
1. SHIVAPRASAD RATHNAKAR SHETTY
Digitally signed
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
by CHANDANA R/AT NO. FLAT NO.1303,
BM
Location: High
BUILDING NO.349, KALPATRU,
Court of SECTOR-3, SRISHTI HOUSING COMPLEX,
Karnataka
MIRA ROAD, THANE-401107
SRI.SADANANDA SHETTY
SINCE DECEASED
REPRESENTED BY HIS SON-IN-LAW/GPA HOLDER
2. GANESH HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT NO.A-601, ASHOK VIHAR,
OFF MILITARY ROAD, MAROL,
ANDHERI(E), MUMBAI-400072
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5992
WP No. 22937 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SRI.KOCHU SHETTY @ KATIL KOCHU SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
S/O LATE DASU SHETTY,
NO NO.3-47, GUDILA HOUSE,
ELINJE POST AND VILLAGE,
MANGALORE TALUQ - 574141
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.V. SHASHI KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. SHRIDEVI SHETTY FOR DHANANJAY KUMAR FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 23.04.2025 AND ALLOW THE SAME, PASSED ON IA NO.14
UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 (2) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, BY
THE COURT OF HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI
IN O.S.NO.117/2019 (ANNEXURE-J).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the impleading applicant in O.S.No.117/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 whereby the application - I.A.No.14 filed by the petitioner-impleading applicant under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking impleadment was dismissed by the Trial Court by holding as under:
"ORDER ON I.A.NO. XIV "The application under 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C., filed by the applicant seeking to impleading the proposed defendant No.2 i.e. Mr. Harish Puthran in the case in the -3- NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR interest of justice and equity.
2. Along with application the applicant has the sworn the affidavit and contended that, the plaintiff filed the suit by suppressing the material facts and suggested false hood in the suit with an intention of illegal gain. He is the Purchaser of the plaint schedule property as per agreement dated on 06.06.2022. He is the Proposed Defendant in the OS proceeding and produced relevant documents before this honorable court to prove the illegal sale (plaint schedule property) intended by the Opponent /plaintiff. Suppressing the real fact of the aforesaid proceeding now filed above false suit without joindering me as necessary parties to the above suit proceedings. This is agreement for sale (Dated 27/03/2019) between Defendant and plaintiff (H. Sadananda Shetty, H. Rathnakara Shetty. Mrs. Malathi R. Manai, Dinesh Shetty, Mrs. Laxmi Shetty, Mrs Shamala Sheety, Mrs. Veena M Shetty, Praveen Kumar Shetty.Mrs.Nandini Shetty, all are represented by their General Power of attorney Holder Mr. Kochu Shetty (Defendant). If he has impleaded in the suit as a Proposed Defendant No.2 and able to show the real facts of the case and properly adjudicate the matter in dispute involved in the aforesaid proceedings. If the application is allowed no hardship will caused to plaintiff in the proceeding. Hence, this application.
3. On the receipt of the application the plaintiffs have filed counter statement. Wherein, it is the contention of the plaintiff that application to implead the proposed defendant no.2 in the suit as alleged as proper and necessary party is -4- NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR false, frivolous and not sustainable either in law or on merits. The plaintiffs deny the Agreement for Sale dated 27.03.2019 between the proposed defendant and the present defendant i.e., Mr. Kochu Shetty. It is denied that H. Sadananda Shetty, H. Rathnakara Shetty, Mrs. Malathi R. Manai, Dinesh Shetty, Mrs. Laxmi Shetty, Mrs. Shamala Shetty, Mrs. Veena M. Shetty, Praveen Kumar Shetty, Mrs. Nandini Shetty, all are represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Kochu Shetty (defendant). It is further submitted that the cause title itself of the application is wrong, and as per the above application, the defendant has filed the above application and not a third party, the defendant in the present suit is mentioned as applicant whereas the applicant is a third party, therefore it is contrary to Civil Rules of Practice as well and wholly misconceived and wrong. The list of documents mentioned Le., Doct. Nos, 1 to 4 i.e., Sale Agreement, receipts, legal notice and reply relates to the alleged Sale Agreement entered between the applicant and defendant in the above suit which has got nothing to do with the present dispute involved in the above suit, as the applicant has got equal and efficacious remedy available under law. The inter-se dispute the applicant and defendant cannot be agitated in the above suit and no relief can be granted to the applicant. The applicant is no way affected by the result of the above suit as there is no cause of action to come on record. As far as Doct. Nos. 5 to 8 i.e., the alleged sale agreement entered in to between the applicant and the plaintiffs is nothing but fabricated and concocted documents. There is no consideration passed under the said agreement -5- NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR as can be gathered from careful reading of the same. Consequently, the agreements without consideration and the vendors are not present owners of the properties these to have, it is null and void under Section 10 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. Even otherwise, this dispute on the said agreement has got nothing to do with the above said dispute. In fact, if this application is allowed, great hardship and loss will be caused to the plaintiffs. The applicant is a wholly unnecessary party to the suit and no relief is claimed against him nor is he in any way affected in the present suit of litigation. Therefore there are no grounds of merits in the said application and therefore prays that the above application may be dismissed with compensatory costs.
4. Heard counsel for plaintiffs and defendants.
5. The points arise for my consideration are as under;
(1) Whether the proposed supplemental defendant No.2 is a necessary and proper party to the suit?
(2) What order?
6. My answer for the above points are as follows Point No.1: In the Negative, Point No.2: As per the order;
For the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: It is the suit for declaration claiming that, the registered sale deed dtd 21-05-19 is null and void and same has not been executed by the plaintiffs and not binding upon them and permanent injunction restraining the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant his men, servants and all those claiming or through under him from trespassing or interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the immovable property fully described in A and B of the plaint. Wherein the plaintiffs contended that, the plaintiffs have duly constituted and appointed their respective GPA Holder Sri. Shivaprakash Rathnakar Shetty and Bel Ganesh Hegde under the GPA Deed dated 07.08.2009 attested by Notary Public fin Kripashankar R. Tiwari, Thane, Maharashtra in his notorial register No.4780/2019 and under GPA Deed dated 06.08.2019 attested by Notary Public 1460/2019 Sri Kudrugi. Thane Maharashtra under his notorial register No. 4780/2019 Said GPA Deeds are produced herewith to be read as part of the plaint. The Plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the immovable properties The detailed description of the said properties are shown in the A and B schedule of the plaint The true extracts from RTC and MR are produced herewith. The plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner who is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the immovable properties bearing S.Nos. 1) 98/10 (98/23 New Nanja 0.84 cents, 2) 98/9 (98/9 New) Nanja 0.54 cents, 3) 98/7 (98/21 new) Nanja 0.14 cents, 4) 98/581 (98/5B1A1P1-P1 New - Converted 0.20 cents, 5) 98/6 (98/33 New) Bhagayath 0.07 cents. The detailed description of the said properties are shown in the B schedule of the plaint which will be hereinafter be referred to as B schedule property in short. The true extracts from RTC and MR are produced herewith. The plaintiffs are ailing and bed ridden and not in a position to move about since about -7- NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR last over 10 years The medical certificate issued by the doctors who are treating them is produced herewith. Under these circumstance they had to appoint their respective GPA Holders to file this suit.
8. The plaintiffs submit that so far as title of the plaintiffs over the plaint A schedule property is concerned there is no dispute. As a matter of fact there was a litigation before the Udupi Courts in OS No. 18/2009 and OS 20/2009 being fought by plaintiff's sister's children Praveen G. Shetty and Veena M. Shetty and 2nd plaintiff in respect of the family properties situated in Hejmady Village of Udupi Taluk inclusive of the suit properties. The plaintiffs submit that initially the plaintiffs had taken the assistance of the defendant for filing the aforesaid suit, instructing lawyers, furnishing documents etc on their behalf have also appointed him as their GPA Holder for some time under the GPA Deed dated 23.09.2008. Subsequently the plaintiffs having doubted the credentials of the defendant they took back the GPA Deed recently, and orally cancelled it and appointed their Cobrother Sri Badila Ramakrishna Manai as GPA Holder to prosecute the suit. Ultimately the said suits have been decreed by the Court as per the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 and 11.04.2019. The copies of the said judgment and decrees are produced herewith.
9. When thus stood the position as stated above recently the GPA holders of the plaintiffs had come to Udupi on 06.08.2019 and when they wanted to check whether the revenue records of suit properties are properly standing in -8- NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR the name of the plaintiffs after all the litigation, on such discreet Enquiry to their utter shock and surprise they found that the suit properties have been transferred to the name of the defendant. Rudely taken aback by this development they applied for the MR Copy and on going through the same they were further shocked to know that on 21.05.2019 the defendant illegally got transferred the suit properties to his name under two separate sale deeds from the plaintiffs. Immediately on the next day they approached the SRO Office, Mulki and to their dismay found that on the basis of alleged GPA Deed alleged to have been executed by the plaintiffs dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015 alleged to have been authenticated by Notary Public Mr. S.B. Musthari acting as the GPA Holder of the plaintiffs got executed two separate sale deeds dated 21.05.2019 in favour of himself. The defendants even got the copies of the alleged GPA Deed datedb09.01.2015/09.05.2015 under RTI Act and found that the defendant by misusing the copy of the earlier GPA Deed given to him by the plaintiffs in respect of the civil litigation has fraudulently created this GPA dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015 and got it authenticated and attested not only by one Notary Public S.B. Musthari, Mumbai dated 09.05.2015, but also by Umesh Shetty, Mangalore under his notorial stamp dated 16.05.2019. Furthermore the said forged and created GPA Deed has also been presented before the District Registrar, D.K., Mangalore for payment of stamp duty which has been accepted in his proceedings dated 08.04.2019.when the defendant was taking care of the civil suits of the plaintiffs he had access to all the documents -9- NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR had the photographs of the parties as well which has been misused by the defendant in creating the GPA Deed dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015.at any rate the said GPA Deed is not valid and binding upon the plaintiffs and the transactions so done are with out the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs are liable to be cancelled. The plaintiffs submit that on careful perusal of the alleged GPA Deed dated 09.05.2015 is perused we find that it is being cleverly forged, fabricated and manipulated by the defendant in order to knock the suit properties. The glaring aspects of the false and forged GPA Deed is pointed out below:
a) On comparison of the GPA Deed dated 23.09.2008 originally given to the defendant by the parties with the alleged GPA Deed 09.01.2015/09.05.2015 we can see the mismatch and difference in the signatures.
b) The photographs found in the alleged GPA deed dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015 taken 15 years back.
c) No. 3 Malathi R. Manai died on 23.07.2016 and No. 4 Dinesh Shetty died on 22.08.2016. The death certificates are produced herewith. Hence, no question of the GPA Deed being attested on 16.05.2019 by Notary Public Sri Umesh Shetty at Mangalore.
e) The Address of the parties found in the alleged GPA Deed dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015 is either wrong or old address. The 1st plaintiff is no longer residing in the said address which has been changed about 10 years back. Address of No. 5 Laxmi Shedthi is now in Moodabidre after her marriage since 20 years. Address of No. 6 Shyamala Shetty in in Mangalore since 15 years. Address of No. 8 is his old address where he is no longer residing since 15 years. Address of No. 9 is wholly wrong she is a permanent resident of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR Canada, North America since 25 years. The Aadhar card of 1st plaintiff and citizenship card and permanent residence card of Nandini shetty@ Bharat Panwala issued by Canadian Government are produced herewith.
e) Plaintiff No. 1 is suffering from Parkinson's disease and has undergone heart surgery who is confined to his house since 2011 and not in a position to move about whereas plaintiff No. 2 is down with Dementia and is bedridden since 2011.
f) None of the parties to the alleged GPA dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015 ог the Plaintiffs know S.B. Musthari, Advocate and Notary, Sakinaka, Mumbai and Rathnakar and Mishra, the advocate purported to have identified the parties, or Umesh Shetty, Advocate and Notary, Mangalore.
g) The stamp paper of the alleged GPA Deed dated 09.05.2015 shows stamp and seal darted 03.01.2015 of Mumbai. The Annexure Seal for having purchased the stamp on the next page shows darted as 08.01.2015. In the last page attestation by the Notary Public S.B. Musthari, Mumbai shows the date as 09.01.2015, but both the Sale Deeds dated 21.05.2019 narrates that the plaintiffs are represented by the defendant as per the alleged GPA Deed dated 09.05.2015 authenticated by S.B. Mushtari, Advocate and Notary, Mumbai. However there is subsequent attestation by Mangalore Notory, Umesh Shetty on 16.05.2019. Thus, the GPA Deed is highly suspicious as the dates on the said GPA Deed is not tallying with each other also attestation in all respects.
h) When the alleged GPA Deed dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015 is attested by S.B. Musthari, Advocate and Notary, Mumbai, why the very same document is again attested by Umesh Shetty, advocate, Mangalore dated 16.05.2019. I) In page No. 5 of the alleged GPA Deed dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015 there is a insertion incorporating power to sell the property to the GPA
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR Holder himself, but it is not countersigned and number of errors shown in the document. So also, so many mistakes occurred in page No. 6 and 7.
j). The agent can not have the power of alienating the property of the Principal to himself under same capacity.
k) There is no notarial Registry number is entered in the GPA Deed dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015 either by S.B. Musthari or Umesh Shetty, Notary Public's.
10. In view of the points narrated above, it is very clear that ex-facie the GPA deed dated 09.01.2015/05 09.05.2015 GPA Deed cannot be executed, attested or authenticated by dead persons which is a nullity under law. The plaintiffs are not active parties either to the forged and fabricated GPA is equally a sham and colourable registered documents not valid and binding upon the plaintiffs and cheating and the plaintiffs are contemplating criminal defendant shortly. The plaintiffs humbly submit that the recitals found in both the regd. Sale deeds dated 21.05.2019 are not only fraudulent, but also false, frivolous, vexatious and self serving. The plaintiffs never sell the suit properties even in their widest dreams in favour of defendant. The plaintiffs have not received any consideration much less as stated in the document either from 2009 on wards or any dates from the defendant. The plaintiffs have not received any consideration much less document either from 2009 on wards or any dates from the defendant had absolutely no source of income to purchase the all for the staggering amount of Rs.65,00,000/. No consideration whosoever is passed on to the plaintiffs an falsely alleged. Under these circumstances, the alleged sale
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR transactions dated 20.05.2019 completely bogus and not valid and binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs humbly submits that at present they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, however, on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents the defendant is likely to trespass and interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and may try to take forceful possession of the same. Even otherwise, the defendant is having copies of all the title deeds and he is likely to commit any mischief to make unlawful gain for himself. The threat from the defendant is subsisting. Under such circumstances the plaintiffs intend to protect their proprietary right over the suit properties. Even if this court were to decree the suit by canceling the document still the threat from the defendant would continue as he does not care for law and order. Hence, the defendant must be restrained from trespassing or interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above the plaintiffs are constrained and entitled to seek cancellation and declaration of the alleged GPA Deed dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015 and the regd. Sale Deeds dated 21.05.2019 registered before the SRO, Mulky as null and void etc and also for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing or interfering in the suit properties. When the illegal sale transactions under 2 separate Sale deeds was done by the defendant and on 06-08-2019 when the plaintiffs GPA holders came to know about fraudulent acts of the defendant and subsequently at Hejamadi village of Udupi Taluk, where
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR the plaint A and B schedule properties. The plaintiffs have prays for judgment and decree in their favour and against the defendant personally.
11. The defendant has appeared through the counsel and filed the written statement and denied the plaint averments. It is also the contention that, the allegation made in the plaint that the denies GPA dated 07.08.2009 and another GPA dated 06.06.2019. There is no GPA dated 07.08.2009 but on the other hand alleged GPA is dated 07.08.2019. the GPA dated 07.09.2019 all the pages are not In signed by the lst plaintiff and and dated 06.08.2019 is not signed by the 2nd plaintiff and as such suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff are not properly represented by duly authorized agents. The alleged GPA holder of the plaintiff No.1 Shivapraksh Rathnakar Shetty and the alleged GPA holder of plaintiff No.2 Sri Ganesh Hegde with a malafide intention to gain unlawfully, colluded with each other GPAs of the plaintiffs and thereby fabricated false filed the above frivolous suit against the defendants. The GPA dated 07.08.2019 is false concocted and created by the Sri Shivaprakash Rathnakar Shetty is only to file the above frivolous suit against the defendant. A bare perusal of the said GPA clearly shows that, it does not contain the signature of alleged executant H Rathnakar Shetty But there is LTM only in the lat page. Further on their Pleading the alleged GPA holder Sri Rathnakar Shetty has come to Udupi on 06.08.2019 and 07.08.2019 he was at Udupi Town Therefore executing of alleged GPA on 07.08.2019 at Thane. Maharastra in Inl Similarly alleged GPA dated
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR 06.08.2019 falee, noncocted and created by Sri Ganesh Hegde to 812106 the above mult against the defendants. A bare perusal, of the said GPA clearly shows that. It does not contain the signature of the alleged executant. H. Sadananda Shetty. But all the pages are signed by Ganesh Hegde. who admittedly was in Udupi on 06.08.2019. Therefore it is olister clear that both the GPAs are created and bogus documents. Absolutely the alleged GPA holder have authority much less power to present the above suit before this Hon'rable court and as such alleged power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the above suit before this court and thus the alleged power of attorney holders of the plaintiffs played fraud on the court and as such on that ground alone above suit is liable to be dismissed by this court. The alleged power of attorney holders of the plaintiffs not approached this court with clean hands and as such they are not entitle for any relief from hands of this court. Hence genuineness of the GPA produced along with the plaint is denied. Plaintiff No.1 was the absolute in possession and enjoyment of the owner properties described in plaint A schedule prior to the sale deed In question dated 21.05.2019. Similarly it is true that the 2nd plaintiff was the absolute owner of the Immovable properties shown in plaint B schedule prior to the sale deed dated 21.05.2019 and after the sale deed the defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint A on and B schedule properties. It is true that this defendant had GPA dated 23- 09-2008 and he has filed suit. The allegations made in the plaint that plaintiffs are ailing and badrifdden and not in a
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR position to move about since about last over 17 year are not correct. The medical certificate produced In not admitted.
12. The allegation made in the plaint that so for as the title of the plaintiff over the plaint A schedule property is concerned no dispute in not correct. It is true that plaintiffs had taken assistance of the defendant for filing the above suits, instructing lawyers furnishing document on their behalf and they appointed the plaintiffs as their GPA holder for some time under GPA dated 23.09.2008 but it is not correct to state that plaintiffs having doubted the credentials of the defendant, they took back GPA deed during the 2010 and orally cancelled it and appointed their co-brother Badia, Ramakrishna Manai as GPA holder to prosecute the suit It is true that said suits are decreed on 28.03.2019 and 11.04.2019. The allegations made in the plaint that recently the GPA holder of the plaintiffs had come to Udupi on 06.08.2019 and when they wanted to check whether the revenue record of the suit properties are properly standing in the name of the plaintiffs, oft all the litigation and on such discreet enquiry their utter shock and surprise they found that the suit properties have been transferred to the name of the defendant and rudely taken aback by this development, they applied for the MR copy and on going through the same they were further shocked to know that 21.05.2019 defendant illegally got transferred on suit properties to hie name under two separate sale deeds from the plaintiff and immediately on the next day they approached the SRO office Mulky and to their dismay found that on the basis of alleged GPA executed by plaintiff dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR alleged to have been authenticated by Notary public Mr S.B.Musthari the GPA holder of the plaintiffs got executed two separate sale deeds dated 21.05.2019 in favour of himself or that defendants even got the copies of the alleged GPA dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015 under RTI Act and found that the defendants by misusing the copy of the earlier GPA deed given to him by the plaintiffs in respect of the civil litigation has fraudulently created this GPA dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015 and got it authenticated and attested not only by one Notary public 5 B Mustari dated 09.05.2015 but also Umesh Shetty Managalore under his notarial stamp dated 16.05.2018 or that the said forged and created GPA deed has also been presented before the District register D.K.Mangalore for payment of stamp duty which has been accepted in his proceedings dated 08.04.2019. when defendant was taking care of the civil suit of the plaintiffs he had access to all the documents had the photos of the parties as well which has been misused by the defendants in creating the GPA dated to 09.01.2015/09.05.2015. The grounds relied upon by the plaintiffs to dispute the GPA narrated in the plaint are banelens. It is not correct to state that on comparison of GPA dated 23.09.2008 originally given to defendant by the parties with the alleged GPA dated 09.01.2015/09.05.2015 we can see the mismatch and difference in the signatures is not correct and denied. It is not admitted that the photos in the GPA are taken 15 years back. It is not admitted that Malathi R Manai died on 23.07.2016 and Dinesh Shetty died on 22.08.2016. The allegations that GPA deed bring attested on 16.05.2019 by Notary Public
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR Umesh Shetty at Managalore is impossible is meaningless. No GPA has been attested by Umesh Shetty on 16.05.2019 is alleged that address given in the GPA It dated 09.01.2015 /09.05.2015 are incorrect is not admitted. The parties themselves have given the address mentioned in the GPA dated 09.01.2015 and if they have changed their address they should have mentioned the same at the time of execution of the GPA. Now they cannot attack the said GPA on the ground of incorrect address. In the sale deede dated 20.05.2019 registered on 21.05.2019 by typing mistake date of GPA instead of typing 09.01.2015 by clerical mistake typed as 09.05.2015. But along with the sale deed notarized copy of GPA dated 09.01.2015 has been produced. The plaintiffs have obtained copy of the said GPA under RTI act which clearly proves that GPA dated 09.01.2015 has been used and on the basis of the said GPA the defendant had executed sale deeds dated 20.05.2019. In the GPA dated 09.01.2015 at page 5 it is specifically mentioned that GPA holder is at liberty to sell the property to himself and he can purchase the properties in his name the said correction has been properly authenticated by the notary and he has also put his seal. The contention of the plaintiffs that stamp paper of the alleged GPA dated 09.05.2015 shown stamp and seal dated 03.01.2015 of Mumbai in not correct. No GPA dated 09.05.2015 the actual date of GPA le 09.01.2015. It in true that stamp and seal in dated 03.01.2015 of Mumbai on that day stamp was obtained from Govt. and the same was sold to the party on 08.01.2015 and GPA i.e. dated 09.01.2015 There is по discrepancy in the date and seal. All the attacks
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR made In that regard are baseless. The GPA deed dated 09.01.2015 has not been attested twice as alleged in the plaint. The copy of the said GPA which was produced before sub register at the time of registration of the sale deeds was obtained by the plaintiffs. original GPA a sum of Rs 6,51,350/- has been To the collected being deficit stamp duty and sum of Rs 2.68.200/-68 penalty on 08.04.2019 and in the said certificate date of GPA has been correctly mentioned as 09.01.2015 and it is also stated that said stamp duty paid is adjusted towards the sale deeds in question dated 20.05.2019 Therefore there is nо GPA dated 09.05.2015 plaintiffs are making much about a The clerical mistake regarding the date of GPA mentioned in the sale deeds 20.05.2019. The plaint that agent cannot have power of alienating the property of the principal to himself under same capacity is not correct. Therefore the contentions of the plaintiff that GPA holder cannot purchase himself is baseless. The 2 persons died subsequent the date of GPA dated 09.01.2015. That recitals found in both the registered sale deeds dated 21.05.2019 are not only fraudulent but also false frivolous Vexations and self serving or that plaintiffs never had any intention to sell the suit properties even in their wildest dreams in favour of the defendants or that plaintiffs have not received any consideration much less as stated in the document either from 2009 onwards or any dates from defendant or that defendant absolutely no source of income to purchase the suit properties for the staggering amount of Rs.65,00,000/- or that no consideration whatsoever it is passed on to the plaintiffs as alleged or that
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR under the said circumstances the alleged sale transaction dated 20/05/2019 is completely bogus and not valid and binding on the plaintiffs etc are false. As stated the plaintiffs and others have entered into agreement for sale dated 22/01/2018 hence there is no merits in the contentions. Plaintiffs are in absolute possession and enjoyment of suit properties and on the basis of forged fabricated document, the defendant is likely and to trespass and interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and made try to take forcible possession of the same or that even otherwise the defendant in having copies of all the title deeds and he is likely to commit mischief to make unlawful gain for himself or that threat from the defendant subsisting and under the said circumstances plaintiffs Intent to protect their property right over the suit properties or that even the suit is decreed by cancelling the documents still threat from the defendant would continue as he does not care for law and order hence defendant must be restrained from trespassing or interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties or that plaintiffs are entitled to cancellation and declaration of the alleged GPA dated 09.05.2015 and registered sale deed dated 21.05.2019 registered before SRO Mulky is null and void etc. Therefore plaintiffs may be dismissed.
16. As per order 1 rule 10 (2) of CPC, the court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear the court to be just, order that the name of any person who ought to have being joined, whether as plaintiffs or
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
13. This application has been filed by the proposed applicants seeking for impleading him proposed defendant No.2 in the suit. As per order 1 Rule 10(2) as per order 1 rule 10 (2) of CPC, the court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party. The suit is for declaration that registered sale deed dated 21-05-2019 are void and ab initio, invalid, inoperative and null and void and it is not executed by the plaintiffs and not binding them and to cance the both said sale deeds to send intimation of cancellation and to the SRO, Mulki and permanent injunction restraining the defendant his men, servants and all those claiming or through under him from trespassing or interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the immovable property fully described in schedule A and B of the plaint. Plaintiffs have objections to the application by denying the the averments of the affidavit, it is the only the contention that the the proposed defendant No.2 as alleged is not proper and necessary party to this suit. The plaintiffs denying the averments with respect to the agreements dated 06-02- 2022, 27-03-2019 the plaintiffs have also denied the application this contrary to civil rules of practice. The plaintiffs have also denied the list of documents relied by the proposed defendant No.2. The proposed defendant No.2 has nothing to do with respect to the dispute involved. The
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR interse dispute can not be agitated with dispute. The applicant is no way affected by the result of the suit. It is further contention of the plaintiff that no consideration has been passed through the said agreements, the agreements without consideration and the vendors are not the present owners of the property same is null and void as per section 10 of Indian Contract Act. Even otherwise this dispute on the said agreement has got nothing to do with respect to the dispute. It is further denied by the plaintiffs that, the proposed defendant cannot to show the real facts of the case of the property and would help with the respect to the adjudication of the matter in dispute. Therefore pray to dismiss the application.
14. Further the defendant has also filed the application by contending that proposed defendant No.2 is not a necessary party to this case and the suit can be decided in the absence of the proposed defendant No.2. It is also the contention that there is no cause of action against the proposed defendant No.2. Hence sought the dismiss the application.
15. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant seeking for declaration of the registered sale deed dated 21-05-2019 has null and void and a consequential relief of permanent injunction. On the otherwise the proposed defendant No.2 is before the court with the contention that, the plaintiffs has got executed the sale agreement dated 27-03-2019 executed by the plaintiffs along with others through GPA in favour of the defendant. It is the
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR specific contention of the proposed defendant No.2 that is the purchaser of the plaint schedule of the property as per the agreement dated 06-06-2022 between the plaintiffs and proposed defendant No.2. The defendant has filed the written statement and took specific contention that the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of suit properties for several decades and they are permanently residing at Mumbai city. It is respectfully submitted that defendant by virtue of registered sale deed dated 20-05- 2019 registered on 21-05-2019 is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property and as such there is no question of granting any decree against the defendant.
16. The fact to considered while considering the application under Order 1 Rule 10(1) of CPC, whether the proposed applicants are proper and necessary parties in whose absence, wherein no effective decree can be passed. In the case on hand the suit is one, for Declaration and perpetual injunction wherein in the plaintiff has sought that the sale deed dtd 21-05-19 is null and void and same has not been executed by the plaintiffs and not binding upon them. The plaintiff has also sought the injunction against the defendant. Where as the applicant has contended he has right in the schedule property as per the sale agreement dated 6-6-2022. The proposed defendant No.2 has also relied on the documents in proof of his contention.
17. The plaintiff has contended that the said documents are created. The said fact can only be ascertained in a full fledged trial. The proposed defendant
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR No.2 is claiming right over the said property by way of agreement. It is the contention of the proposed defendant No.2 that he is a proper party to the suit as plaintiff himself as a executed sale agreement dated 06-02-2022 in favour of the proposed defendant No.2.
18. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he has executed a sale deed dated 21-05-2019 in favour of defendant and it is also the contention that, he is in the possession of the property. The proposed defendant No.2 is the purchaser from the plaintiffs, who has to ascertain his right through the document styled as sale agreement dated 06-06-2022. The plaintiff at the time of filing the suit has made out the specific cause of action for the suit has arose on 21-05-2019 when there is an illegal transaction and separate sale deed was done by the defendant and on 06- 08-2019, when the plaintiff GPA holder came to no about fraudulent act of the defendant with respect A and B schedule properties at Hejamadi village. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the sale agreement of the proposed defendant No.2 on 06-06-2022 has not been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.2. The plaintiff is master of his case, who decides against whom he is going to claim a relief in the case. The relief sought by the proposed defendant No.2 based upon the sale agreement dated 06- 06-2022 which would not fall with in the ambit of the prayer of facts of the case on hand.
19. Even though proposed defendant No.2 claim to be purchaser of the plaint schedule properties as per the
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR agreement dated 06-06-2022 with respect to the schedule properties the relief sought by the proposed defendant No.2 against the plaintiffs would not fall with in the ambit of this case. The proposed defendant No.2 is not a necessary party in whose absence also this court can come to just the conclusion and proper decree can with passed. The claim made by the proposed defendant No.2 does not fall with in this case and same has to be claimed by the proposed defendant No.2 by filing separate suit against the plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the application needs to be dismissed in the interest of justice and equity. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
20. POINT NO.2:- Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER The I.A.No.XIV Order I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C., filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed with cost."
2. After reconsideration of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.XIV nor can the same be said to cause any prejudice or having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR 227 of the Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423 case.
3. A perusal of the material on record will clearly indicate that at any rate since any judgment, decree, order, compromise, settlement, etc., passed / to be passed in O.S.No.117/2019 would not be binding upon the petitioner nor would it affect the petitioner's right or claim over the suit schedule property, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if impleadment is not permitted especially when the Trial Court has reserved liberty in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including filing a separate suit.
4. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the petition deserves to be disposed of accordingly.
5. It is made clear that any judgment, decree, order, settlement, compromise, etc. passed / to be passed / entered into in the present suit in O.S.No.117/2019 would not be binding upon the petitioner nor affect his alleged right, title, interest or
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5992 WP No. 22937 of 2025 HC-KAR possession over the suit schedule property or his rights or contentions over the property.
6. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including filing a separate suit, subject to all just exceptions.
7. Subject to the aforesaid directions and leaving open all contentions petition stands disposed of.
8. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34