A decree holder challenged the executing court's order raising attachment of land wrongly attached from a third-party objector, as the judgment debtor's Sy.No.40/4 could not be identified. The High Court upheld the raising of attachment but clarified the objector's findings would not bind a fresh survey application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:26286 WP No. 54840 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 54840 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT SYNDICATE HOUSE MANIPAL , DAKSHINA KANNADA REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI J.SUDHASHANKAR RAO PIN: 576 119
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.196, 1ST BLOCK 7TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, KORAMANGALA ,
NC: 2024:KHC:26286 WP No. 54840 of 2017
BENGALURU- 560 034
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S.SATYANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3 V/O/D 30.06.2021 NOTICE TO R4 TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE DATED:10.07.2017 IN I.A.NO.2 IN EX.CASE NO.177/2003 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-G ALLOW THIS W.P.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.2 in Ex.Case.No.177/2003 dated 10.07.2017 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, whereby the executing court has raised the order of attachment, the decree holder is before this court.
NC: 2024:KHC:26286 WP No. 54840 of 2017
as per the decree a property belonging to the judgment debtor No.2 is sought to be attached and an attached order is passed.
Then the objector has filed this petition. It is the case of the objector that he has purchased a property measuring 2 acres 12 guntas old Sy.No.40/5 and 2 acres in Sy.No.41/3, he is the owner possessor of the land. He is cultivating the agricultural property bearing and new Sy.Nos.69 and 71 respectively, situated at Chikkanayakanahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 2 acres 12 guntas and 2 acres respectively, which is in Schedule ‘A’ Property having acquired the same under the registered sale deed dated 20.11.1985. As per the order of ADLR, the said property was re-numbered as Sl.No.71 in respect of old Sy.No.41/3 and Sy.No.69 in the place of Sy.No.40/5 and the boundaries were fixed in the year 1996 after re-survey. On 07.02.2006, he was surprised to see that a notice of attachment warrant was pasted on the stone pillar of Schedule-C property. The attachment warrant was issued in respect of the property allegedly belonging to one Gopala Raja S/o K.K. Ramaswamy Raja and without verification of the said property, the property
belonging to the objector has been attached. During the pendency of the petition, the surveyor was appointed to identify the properties in dispute. The objector was examined as PW-1 and marked 7 documents. The court commissioner
was examined as CW-1 and his report is marked as Ex.C-1. The power of attorney holder of DHR was examined as RW-1 and 12 documents have been marked.
the survey supervisor was examined as CW-1. It is the evidence of the survey supervisor that as per the directions of the court he made an attempt to identify the property and submitted the report as per Ex.C-1. The court observed that as per the sketch prepared by the surveyor, Sy.No.40 measuring 5 acres 30 guntas is gomal land. When the decree holder has
NC: 2024:KHC:26286 WP No. 54840 of 2017
identified the property and as per that identification, said property is only 36 guntas and he has marked the same in orange colour. The property marked in light blue colour is a property of the objector. As per court commissioner’s report it is only 36 guntas is available in the said Sy.No. as identified by the DHR.
the competent authority to seek attachment of the property which was in fact mortgaged by the JDRs. The DHR without getting the property identified by the competent authority, sought for attachment and at the instance of the DHR, the attachment notice is wrongly affixed on the stone slab of the property of the objector and the attachment warrant needs to be raised. Court further observed that, the decree holder is at liberty to get the property measured by the competent authority and to seek attachment of the property of the JDRs after its identification and accordingly I.A.No.2 filed by the objector is allowed. As far as I.No.3 is concerned the objector has sought for stay of all execution proceedings and the court dismissed the same.
submitted that earlier Sy.No as mentioned by the objector is 40/5 and the RTC extract which was issued in the year 2000 clearly shows that there is Sy.No.40/4 and the executing court relying on this kind of evidence has raised the attachment order which is not correct. Learned counsel submits that if commissioner’s report and all the evidence is placed before this court, all the correct facts will come to light and this court can appreciate the matter in a better way and at any rate the order impugned needs to be set aside.
documents filed by the decree holder and on his own identification, the attachment order was passed. When the objector has come before the court and he has stated before the court about the sy.nos and by virtue of registered sale deeds, the property purchased by the objector, the court has appointed the court commissioner and he has submitted his report. On that court has come to the conclusion that as per the commissioner report, there is no land in Sy.No.40/4 except 36 guntas of land. The court infact in the order has observed that the decree holder is at liberty to get property measured by the competent authority and to seek attachment of the property of JDRs after its identification. This aspect the court bellow had rightly held, without the identification of the property just like that property is of third party who is not a judgment debtor cannot be attached. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/DHR that the observations of the court with regard to land in Sy.No.40/4 needs to be set aside and it should be permitted make an fresh application for survey. If those observations are not set aside, it would come in the way of decree holder.
NC: 2024:KHC:26286 WP No. 54840 of 2017
Accordingly, the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:26286 WP No. 54840 of 2017
ORDER
SD/JUDGE
TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the executing court rightly raised the attachment of property claimed by an objector when the decree holder's Sy.No.40/4 could not be identified.
Whether observations of the executing court that no land existed in Sy.No.40/4 would prejudice a fresh survey application by the decree holder.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited
Col. C.S. Madappa (since dead by his LRs)
Smt. Renu Madappa
Sri Praveen Chendanda
Smt Pravica Madappa
M/S Naveen Textiles Ltd.
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
