Dismissed

Gangamma W/O Sangappa Sakkari v. Kumari Megha and Ors.

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2024WP/225557/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A judgment-debtor sought to set aside an executing court's refusal to postpone execution of a final decree pending her appeal against rejection of her allotment request. The High Court dismissed the writ petition but directed the appellate court to expedite disposal of R.A.No.15/2018.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed with direction to expedite R.A.No.15/2018 before Principal District Judge, Raichur.

Gangamma W/O Sangappa Sakkari Vs Kumari Megha and… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2945 WP No. 225557 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA WRIT PETITION NO. 225557 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GANGAMMA W/O SANGAPPA SAKKARI AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O NEAR SRINIVAS SAW MILL, KARADAKAL ROAD, LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶13

KUMARI MEGHA, D/O SHARANAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HER CLASS I LEGAL HEIR I.E., SMT. LALITHAMMA @ SUDHA W/O SHARANAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O HATTI, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101.

¶14

ANUSHA D/O SHARANAPPA AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: HATTI, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101.

¶15

LALITHAMMA @ SUDHA W/O SHARANAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HATTI, TQ: LINGASUGUR,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2945 WP No. 225557 of 2020

¶17

DIST: RAICHUR-584101.

¶18

SHARANAPPA S/O KANTEPPA HINDUPUR AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101.

¶19

MOUNESH S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O BALAGANUR, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101.

¶20

BASAVARAJ S/O TIPPANNA AMBLI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O BALAGANUR, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101.

¶21

THE CHIEF OFFICER, T.M.C. LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1, R2, R5 AND R7 ARE SERVED; V/O DT.12/4/2023, NOTICE TO R4 & R6 HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04-02-2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SINDHANUR IN E.P.NO.11/2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE OBJECTIONS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2945 WP No. 225557 of 2020

¶26

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents.

¶30

The writ petition is filed with the following

¶31

prayer:

¶32

“(a) SET ASIDE the order dated 04-02-2020 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Sindhanur in E.P.No.11/2018, vide Annexure-H and consequently allow the objections, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶33

(b) PASS such other orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this Writ Petition, in the interest of justice.”

¶34

The facts in brief which are utmost necessary

¶35

for disposal of the present writ petition are as under:

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2945 WP No. 225557 of 2020

¶37

The petitioner has purchased one of the items of the suit properties which is the subject matter of O.S.No.256/2006. The said suit came to be decreed and preliminary decree was passed. In order to execute the decree passed in original suit, final decree proceedings were initiated which was earlier numbered as FDP.No.15/2011 and subsequently, numbered as FDP No.22/2014. Final decree came to be passed and it has become final.

¶38

Thereafter, in order to execute final decree, an execution petition came to be filed in E.P.No.11/2018. The present petitioner is the judgment debtor No.4 in the said execution petition who objected for executing the decree as per the final decree proceedings stating that the property that has been purchased by judgment debtor No.4 should be allotted to the share of judgment debtor No.1.

¶39

In the final decree proceedings itself, the present petitioner had sought for allotting the share to

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2945 WP No. 225557 of 2020

¶41

judgment debtor No.1 who is the vendor of judgment debtor No.4 so as to reach the equitable partition. The said request of the writ petitioner was rejected and against which, an appeal in R.A.No.15/2018 is filed before the Principal District Judge, Raichur. No interim order was granted in the said appeal and therefore, execution petition was continued. In the execution petition, the present petitioner has filed a petition stating that the execution petition needs to be postponed till the disposal of R.A.No.15/2018. The matter was heard on the said request of the writ petitioner and rejected by the executing Court. The said order is challenged by the writ petitioner in this writ petition.

¶42

Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the

¶43

petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition contended that the first appeal is being protracted on account of death of one of the daughters of his vendor and in the meantime, if the decree is executed, it would act as

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2945 WP No. 225557 of 2020

¶45

detrimental to the interest of the writ petitioner and

¶46

sought for allowing the writ petition.

¶47

On behalf of the respondents, none present.

¶48

Taking note of the above factual aspects, in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner, no relief can be granted in the present writ petition except directing the learned Principal District Judge, Raichur to dispose of

¶49

the R.A.No.15/2018 as expeditiously as possible.

¶50

Hence, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶53

ii. However, R.A.No.15/2018 is directed to be

¶54

expedited as earlier as possible.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

RSP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 44

Gangamma W/O Sangappa Sakkari v. Kumari Megha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangamma W/O Sangappa Sakkari v. Kumari Megha and Ors.

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

Syed Mukhtar Ahmed Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Pratap Vs State of Karnataka and Ors.

Siddappa and Anr. Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Major Shahanawaz Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

M/S Kesoram Industries Sltd Vs the Superintendent

Sayed Murtuza Husaini S/O Syed Mahmood Hussaini Vs the Karnataka State and Ors.