Dismissed

Sri Santosh S/O Manjunath Shetty v. Sri Mallikarjun S/O Dundappa Paranatti

Karnataka HC18 Apr 2024WP/102355/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a writ petition challenging an execution order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the decree lacked clarity on monthly rent, rendering the court's assessment of arrears unjustified. The High Court found the ground untenable as the decree's operative portion directed handover of possession and payment of rent as and when due.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Santosh S/O Manjunath Shetty Vs Sri… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6522 WP No. 102355 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 102355 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI SANTOSH S/O. MANJUNATH SHETTY, AGE: ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HOTEL VARTHE PANJURLI, MAIN ROAD, SHIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580031.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶11

SRI MALLIKARJUN S/O. DUNDAPPA PARANATTI, AGE: ABOUT 87 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 2. SRI BASAVARAJ S/O. MALLIKARJUN PARANATTI, AGE: ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, 3. SRI SIDDALINGESH S/O. MALLIKARJUN PARANATTI, AGE: ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.13, 1^ST PHASE, AKSHAY COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.12.2023 PASSED IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.73/2019 BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC III, HUBBALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6522 WP No. 102355 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition is filed seeking for following relief:

¶19

“That by way of writ of certiorari this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2023 passed in Execution Petition no.73/2019 by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC III, Hubballi vide Annexure-C.”

¶20

Sri S.K.Kayakmath, learned counsel for petitioner s ubmitted that petitioner was judgment debtor in Executive Petition no.73/2019 on file of Principal Civil Judge, Hubbli. Said petition was filed for execution of judgment and decree dated 26.02.2019 passed in OS no.45/2017. It was submitted that under decree, defendant was directed to handover actual vacant possession of suit property within three months and to pay arrears of rent amount of Rs.96,000/- to go on paying amount as and when due till vacating of premises. It was submitted that without there being any clarity regarding monthly rent payable assessment of total arrears at Rs.3,10,326/- by Executing Court was not justified and therefore, seeks for quashing of same.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused

¶22

writ petition record.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6522 WP No. 102355 of 2024

¶24

From above, it is seen that main ground for challenging impugned order is that decree is not clear about monthly rent payable. There is no dispute about petitioner having handed over possession of property to decree holder. Perusal of relevant portion of decree would indicate as follows:-

¶25

“The defendant is hereby directed to hand over the actual vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of this order.

¶26

Further the defendant is hereby directed to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.96,000/- and also go on paying the rent as and when become due till vacating the premises.”

¶27

Indeed, operative portion of judgment does not quantify monthly rent payable. However, issue no.3 framed in suit is whether plaintiffs prove that rate of rent of suit schedule property was Rs.24,000/p.m. which is answered in affirmative. Such being case, ground urge for challenging order appears spacious and untenable. As such, this Court is unimpressed. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

VMB Ct: mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri Santosh S/O Manjunath Shetty v. Sri Mallikarjun S/O Dundappa Paranatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Santosh S/O Manjunath Shetty v. Sri Mallikarjun S/O Dundappa Paranatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Anjaneyulu Sathyanarayana S/O Sathyanarayana Vs the Union of India

Krishna S/O Obalesh Arwed Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishna S/O Obalesh Arwed Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivarudraswamy S/O Sharabayya Vs Karnataka Lokayukta

Sri Bheemappa S/O Hanamappa Walikar Vs Smt Shantavva S/O Mallappa Walikar

Sri Santosh S/O. Manjunath Shetty Vs Sri Mallikarjun S/O. Dundappa Paranatti