Disposed

The Principal v. Mrs Renuka Bai

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2024WP/16569/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An educational institution petitioned against an executing court's attachment warrant of movables issued on a suit decree granting succession certificate for pensionary benefits of a deceased employee. The High Court held the decree non-executable since amounts were undetermined, set aside the attachment order, directed payment of determined benefits and permitted respondents to seek determination

What did the court decide?

Impugned execution order set aside; petitioner to pay determined pensionary benefits within eight weeks; respondents free to approach appropriate forum; petitioner may withdraw deposited amount.

The Principal Vs Mrs Renuka Bai — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31448 WP No. 16569 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION No. 16569 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE PRINCIPAL KLE SOCIETY S NIJALINGAPPA COLLEGE RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI NARAYAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJESWARA P N, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MRS. RENUKA BAI W/O RAMAJULU NAIDU AGED 73 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

RESPONDENT No.1 DIED ON 5.6.2020. RESPONDENT No.2 IS THE LEGAL HEIRS REPRESENTATIVE OF R1

¶14

MRS. LATHA D/O RAMAJULU NAIDU AGED 51 YEARS

¶15

BOTH ARE R/AT No.10 I MAIN, VASANTNAGAR BANGALORE - 560 052.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE V/O DTD. 31.01.2024, R2 IS LRs OF DECEASED R1)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31448 WP No. 16569 of 2017

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN EXECUTION PETITION No.1468/2015 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.4.2017 IN EX.PETITION No.1468/2015 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE IN SO FAR AS ISSUING ATTACHMENT WARRANT OF MOVABLES OF THE PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE EXECUTION PETITION No.1468/2015 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEX-A.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2017 passed in Execution Case No.1468/2015, wherein the attachment warrant of movables was issued against JDR.No.1 in the said proceedings, he has preferred the present writ petition.

¶24

The petitioner is an educational institution. The respondents are the legal representatives of one Smt.Sarojini Swaminath Naidu, who was an employee of the petitioner institution. As she was not granted the pensionary benefits and subsequently she died, the

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31448 WP No. 16569 of 2017

¶26

respondents preferred O.S.No.1084/2008 claiming to be

¶27

the legal representatives of the deceased Smt.Sarojini Swaminath Naidu and entitled to the pensionary benefits. The Trial Court has decreed the said suit which is as follows;

¶28

“The suit of the Plaintiffs is hereby decreed.

¶29

The Petitioner No.1/Plaintiff No.1 is entitled to get the succession certificate to receive the pensionary benefits due to the deceased Sarojini from the respondents/defendants 3 to 5.

¶30

It is hereby ordered to issue Succession Certificate in favour of petitioner No.1/Plaintiff No.1 to receive the pensionary benefits due to the deceased Sarojini Naidu from the respondents/defendants 3 to 5.

¶31

No order as to costs.

¶32

Draw a decree accordingly.”

¶33

On the strength of the said decree, the respondents have preferred Execution Case No.1468/2015 and the Trial Court on 15.04.2017 has passed the following order;

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31448 WP No. 16569 of 2017

¶35

“Case called.

¶36

DHR counsel present files memo with

¶37

moveables list.

¶38

Issue attachment warrant of moveables against JDR no.1 if steps taken.

¶39

Respondent by 27.07.2017.”

¶40

Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶41

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the decree passed in O.S.No.1084/2008 is not executable and the Trial Court could not have issued the attachment warrant of movables against JDR.No.1.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents justifies the order passed by the Executing Court and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶43

Admittedly, in O.S.No.1084/2008 it has been held

¶44

that the respondents herein are entitled to get the Succession Certificate and receive the pensionary benefits due to the deceased Smt.Sarojini Swaminath Naidu from

¶45

the petitioner herein. However, the amount receivable

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31448 WP No. 16569 of 2017

¶47

towards the pensionary benefits is not determined. Under such circumstances, the respondents are entitled to make due representation to the petitioner on the strength of the Succession Certificate and request for release of the pensionary benefits payable to Smt.Sarojini Swaminath Naidu, to them. If they are dissatisfied as to the amount determined by the petitioner herein, they are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for determination of the pensionary benefits. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1084/2008 is not executable in nature. Under

¶48

such circumstances, the Executing Court could not have ordered for attachment of movables. Hence, the following;

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The impugned order dated 15.04.2017 passed by VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Execution Case No.1468/2015 is hereby set-aside.

¶51

(ii) The petitioner shall pay the pensionary benefits payable to Smt.Sarojini Swaminath Naidu, as determined by them to the

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:31448 WP No. 16569 of 2017

¶54

respondent, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶55

(iii) Liberty is granted to the respondents to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if they are not satisfied by the amount determined by the petitioner institution towards the pensionary benefits.

¶56

(iv) The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before this Court pursuant to the order of this Court.

¶57

(v) Accordingly, the petition is disposed of .

¶58

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12

The Principal v. Mrs Renuka Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal v. Mrs Renuka Bai

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

Chandra Shekara Dikshith Vs S. Manjunathaiah

Smt. Mayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr a Mohammed Siddiqh Vs the State of Karnataka

Kiran.G. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anandaram G H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C Narayanaswamy Vs Sri Sridhar