Non-Alienating Members Of Joint Family Cannot Be Impleaded In Suit Filed For Specific Performance Of Contract: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that even if the property which is the subject matter of the agreement to sell is the ancestral property, non-alienating members of a joint family have no locus to contest the suit for specific performance.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum sitting at Dharwad bench dismissed the petition filed by Rasheedabanu Mohammed Goush Kwati and another challenging the order of the trial court dismissing their application seeking impleadment.

Ashpakaahamad Abdulasab Mulla had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on an agreement to sell dated 12.02.2018 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3. The petitioners are daughters of defendant No.1 and sisters of defendant Nos.2 and 3.

T8heir contention was that suit property is the joint family ancestral property and therefore, when the matter was set down for defendants arguments, they filed the impleading application.

The bench noted that “It is a trite law that in a suit for specific performance, necessary parties are only the parties to the contract. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff to enforce the agreement has filed a suit for specific performance. The trial is concluded and when the matter was set down for defendants arguments, this impleading application is filed.”

Following which it held “Even if the property which is the subject matter of the agreement to sell is the ancestral property, non-alienating members of a joint family have no locus to contest the suit for specific performance. They are not necessary parties and their presence is not at all required for effective and complete adjudication of the suit agreement, which is subject matter of the suit for specific performance. The learned Judge has rightly rejected the application.”

The bench stated that it appears that this application is set up by defendant Nos.1 to 3 only to protract the hearing of the suit and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have succeeded, as this court granted an interim order, which is in force since 14.02.2024.

Dismissing the petition the court directed the Judge is to expedite and decide the suit, in accordance with law within two months.

Appearance: Advocate Nagaraj J Appannanavar for Petitioner.

Advocate Hanumanthareddy Sahukar for R1

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 249

Case Tile: Rasheedabanu Mohammed Goush Kwati & ANR AND Ashpakaahamad Abdulasab Mulla & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100847 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order