Allowed

T Ramareddy Dead by Lrs v. Akkamma

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024CRP/127/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Decree holders' execution petition to enforce a decree of permanent injunction over agricultural land was dismissed by the trial court on the view that they had effectively sought possession. The High Court set aside that order, holding the executing court exceeded its brief, and directed it to enforce the injunction decree as requested.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing Ex.No.08/2012 set aside; trial court directed to enforce the injunction decree by taking steps requested by petitioners.

T Ramareddy Dead by Lrs Vs Akkamma — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10488 CRP No. 127 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 127 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

T RAMAREDDY

DEAD BY LRS.,

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶11

SRI T R KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE RAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶12

SRI T R MUNIREDDY S/O LATE RAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI K R GOPAL REDDY S/O LATE RAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶15

SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE RAMAREDDY W/O NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶16

SMT. KAMALAMMA D/O LATE RAMAREDDY W/O MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶17

SMT. MANGAMMA D/O LATE RAMAREDDY

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10488 CRP No. 127 of 2022

¶19

W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶20

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O LATE RAMAREDDY AGED 25 YEARS

¶21

ALL ARE R/AT KALAIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, SUNDARAPALYA POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 121.

¶22

REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER K M KODANDARAMA REDDY S/O MUNI REDDY, AGED 60 YEARS KALAIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE KYASAMBALLI HOBLI SUNDARAPALYA POST BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 121.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK N.V., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

AKKAMMA W/O LATE BYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶27

SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE BYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶28

SMT. LAKSHAMAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶29

SRI MUNIYAPPA FOSTERED S/O BODDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10488 CRP No. 127 of 2022

¶31

SRI ANNAPPA S/O AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶32

SMT. DASAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶33

SRI ANANDAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶34

SRI SANJEEVAPPA S/O LATE MANEGANTI MUNEAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS

¶35

SRI NAGARAJAPPA S/O BUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶36

SRI BUDDAPPA S/O BUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶37

ALL ARE R/AT SUNDARAPALYA VILLAGE KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 121

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(R-2 TO 4, R-9 & R-10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; PETITION AGAINST R-7 IS ABATED, VIDE ORDER DATE: 14.09.2023;

¶40

BRINGING LRs OF DECEASED R-5, R-6 & R-8 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED:07.11.2023; R-2 IS THE LR OF DECEASED R-1, VIDE ORDER DATED:25.01.2024.)

¶41

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2022 PASSED IN EX.No.08/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KGF DISMISSING THE PETITION.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:10488 CRP No. 127 of 2022

¶44

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

¶45

ORDER

¶46

These facts are not in dispute.

¶47

The petitioner - Sri.T.Ramareddy, the predecessor in

¶48

interest of the petitioners had instituted a suit in O.S. No.116/2005 seeking for a decree of injunction in respect of two bits of properties in Sy.No.57. After the trial, the suit in O.S. No.116/2005 was decreed in part and only in respect of Item No.1, Sri.T.Ramareddy was granted an injunction while the suit in respect of Item No.2 was dismissed.

¶49

The defendants did not challenge the said decree and

¶50

it has, thus, attained finality insofar as Item No.1 was concerned.

¶51

Sri.T.Ramareddy, however, preferred an appeal

¶52

against the refusal of an injunction decree in respect of other bit property in Sy.No.57 i.e., Item No.2 in R.A. No.31/2007.

¶53

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10488 CRP No. 127 of 2022

¶54

The Appellate Court after considering the matter in detail proceeded to allow the appeal and decreed the suit in its entirety by its order dated 05.04.2011. This order has also attained finality, since no second appeal has been preferred against him by the defendants.

¶55

In the year 2005, Sri.T.Ramareddy filed an Execution Petition complaining that the decree of injunction had been disobeyed and sought for attachment and sale of the movables of the judgment debtors along with arrest and detention in a civil prison, apart from claiming compensation of Rs.25,000/- being the damages caused to the property.

¶56

This Execution Petition has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that P.W.1, the legal representative of Sri.T.Ramareddy had admitted in crossexamination as follows –

¶57

“¸ÀzÀj ¤¦.6 gÀ°è GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸Áé¢üÃ£À ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ DzÉÃ±ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ §gÉ¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸Áé¢üÃ£À ©r¹ PÉÆqÀÄªÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjAzÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉ

¶58

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10488 CRP No. 127 of 2022

¶59

DUÀzÀAvÉ gÀPÀëuÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¤¦ 6 £ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀQÃ®jUÉ w½¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.”

¶60

The Trial Court has also observed that P.W.3, a witness of the Decree Holder had also admitted that the case that had been filed seeking possession of property and it has, therefore, concluded that with respect to the decree, being only for permanent injunction and not for possession, the execution could not have been filed for recovery of possession from the judgment debtors.

¶61

In my view, this finding of the Trial Court cannot be

¶62

accepted. Firstly, because it is not in dispute that the suit property is a vacant agriculture property and therefore, if there was an order of injunction granted in favour of Sri.T.Ramareddy, his legal representatives would obviously be entitled to seek for execution of decree in the case of any disobedience. The order of the Trial Court cannot also

¶63

be accepted because the judgment debtors appeared before the Executing Court and stated that they had not

¶64

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10488 CRP No. 127 of 2022

¶65

violated any order of the Trial Court and the petition had been filed only to harass them.

¶66

If the judgment debtors contended that they had never interfered with the possession of the decree holders, the Trial Court ought to have ensured that the decree of injunction that had been granted was enforced. The Trial Court, in my view, has gone beyond its brief in recording a finding that the petitioners were not in possession of the property when it was not even the case of the judgment debtors that the petitioner was not in possession of the property.

¶67

In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to enforce the order of injunction by taking necessary steps as requested by the petitioners. Revision is, accordingly, allowed .

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

hnm

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

T Ramareddy Dead by Lrs v. Akkamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Ramareddy Dead by Lrs v. Akkamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Malathi Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Durga Motors Vs Special Land Acquisiton Officer

K.V. Ramesh Vs the Secretary

Varun Atreya Vs Mr. Fayaz

Sri a Thimmappa Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Keshavmurthy Vs Sri P Rajanna