Disposed

Sri Manjunatha R v. Smt Mahalakshmi

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2023WP/2127/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an execution court order. The petitioners sought to set aside the attachment and sale of property, claiming they were legal heirs of the decree-holder who inherited it. The court deferred the proceedings to allow petitioners to file objections under CPC Order 21 Rules 97-101 before the sale proceeds.

What did the court decide?

The sale proceedings are deferred, and petitioners are granted ten days to file objections or applications in the execution proceedings under Order 21 Rules 97-101 of CPC.

Sri Manjunatha R Vs Smt Mahalakshmi — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2127 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 2127 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MANJUNATHA R, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE SMT REVAMMA AND SRI RAMAIAH, R/O NO.37, 3RD CROSS, OPP KIRISKAR FOUNDRY, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560086.

¶9

Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SMT SAVITRAMMA R, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O LATE SMT REVAMMA AND SRI RAMAIAH, RESIDENT OF C/O B R GOVINDAPPA, NO.30, 3RD CROSS, DODDIPALYAKALYANA MANTA, KUVEMPU NAGAR, VTC, BANGALORE - 560060.

¶11

SRI ANAND R, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE SMT REVAMMA AND SRI RAMAIAH, R/O NO.37, 3RD CROSS, KIRLOSKAR FOUDRY, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560022.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

WP No. 2127 of 2023

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT MAHALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE SMT REVANNA AND SRI RAMAIAH, R/O NO.37, 3RD CROSS, KIRLOSKAR BADAVANE, OPP MAHALAKSHMIPURA BADAVANE, BANGALORE - 560022.

¶18

SRI GAUTHAM KUMAR B, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O SRI SHANKAR LAL.B, R./O NO.134/1, HEGGANAHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE -560091.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI B ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14/11/2022 PASSED IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.2285/2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 BY THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-19) AT BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

WP No. 2127 of 2023

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners, who are impleading applicants in the execution proceedings in Ex. Case No.2285/2017 have called in question the correctness of the order at Annexure-'A' dated 17.12.2022, which is the order of 14.11.2022 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 21 Rule 54 and 64 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., whereby the executing Court has allowed the application filed by the Decree Holder and ordered for issuance of attachment warrant of immoveable property and also for issuance of sale notice.

¶27

The petitioners have also sought for setting aside of the order of 24.01.2023, whereby the executing Court has ordered for reissue of sale notice and fixed the Spot sale on 02.02.2023 and Court sale on 17.02.2023 .

¶28

It is the case of the petitioners-impleading applicants that the petitioners and Judgment debtor are children of Smt.Revamma and that the property belonged to Smt.Revamma and subsequently after her death, the

¶29

¶30

WP No. 2127 of 2023

¶31

Judgment Debtor has got the revenue records transferred to her name though the property belonged to all the legal heirs of late Smt.Revamma. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Decree Holder could not have proceeded against the property which belonged to all the legal heirs of late Smt.Revamma as regards the debt incurred by the Judgment Debtor.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Decree Holder submits that interest by all the other legal heirs of late Smt.Revamma have been relinquished in favour of Judgment Debtor on 30.05.2008 and subsequently, the Bangalore Development Authority has executed the Sale Deed in favour of the sole Judgment Debtor on 07.12.2010.

¶33

Various other contentions have been raised, including that the impleading application is not

¶34

maintainable.

¶35

¶36

WP No. 2127 of 2023

¶37

Admittedly, the petitioners-impleading

¶38

applicants are seeking to claim that decree is not binding insofar as their interest in the property is concerned. The only legal remedy available is by raising an obstruction and other contentions in terms of Order 21 Rule 97 to Rule 101 of C.P.C. in accordance with law and mere efforts to file the impleading applications would not be an appropriate remedy.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment in the case of Shreenath and Another

¶40

vs. Rajesh and others - 1998 (4) SCC 543 and submits that the petitioners ought to be given an opportunity to assert their rights before the Court, which needs to be taken note of appropriately and accordingly, even if the application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC is rejected, the same will not have the effect of foreclosing the right of the petitioners to seek for adjudication of their interest.

¶41

¶42

WP No. 2127 of 2023

¶43

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. If objection/application is filed in the manner contemplated hereinabove, the same is to be adjudicated before proceeding further.

¶44

Accordingly, the proceedings relating to sale is deferred till conclusion of the executing Court to be arrived at on the objection/application to be filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are granted ten days' time from today to file the necessary objections/application in the execution proceedings as referred to above. The application/objection, if filed by the petitioners, is to be disposed of by the executing Court expeditiously taking note that the decree is of the year 2015.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

VGR

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Manjunatha R v. Smt Mahalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha R v. Smt Mahalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phoenix Arc Private Limited Vs Smt K C Shobha

Sri L Suresh Vs Sri L Ramesh

Smt. Sharadamma Vs Ramamurthy Since Dead

Sri S a Arunkumar Vs Smt S Sadguna

Mr. Gopalakrishna. N Vs Mr. Puttaraju S

Smt Padmavathi Vs Smt Narayanamma