Allowed

Smt Subbalakshmamma @ Subbamma v. Sri G M Narayanaswamy

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2024WP/9645/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Decree-holder in an execution petition challenged the Executing Court's order keeping her application for police protection pending for enquiry. The High Court held a mini trial was unwarranted, set aside the impugned order, allowed the application, and directed police protection to implement the decree of perpetual injunction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; I.A.No.1 allowed; jurisdictional Police directed to provide protection to enforce the judgment and decree, with costs borne by petitioner.

Smt Subbalakshmamma @ Subbamma Vs Sri G M… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:52096 WP No. 9645 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9645 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SUBBALAKSHMAMMA @ SUBBAMMA W/O LATE KHALIF, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUNNAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLPURA DISTRICT 563 125

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD C REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY M.V., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

SRI. G.M. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O MUNINARAYANAPPA,

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

G.M. DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O MUNINARAYANAPPA

¶13

RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT GUNNAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 563 125

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. DAYANAND, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ASHOK B PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:52096 WP No. 9645 of 2024

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30/01/2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 1 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC IN EX PET NO. 10/2020 PASSED BY THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The decree-holder in E.P.No.10/2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Chintamani, is before this Court challenging the correctness of an Order dated 30.01.2024, by which, it kept I.A.No.1 pending and proceeded to post the case for enquiry on the said application.

¶23

The suit in O.S.No.124/2000 was filed by the petitioner for perpetual injunction in respect of property on which a 05 ankana house existed apart from one tamarind tree, one neem tree, three gangireni trees, one drumstick

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52096 WP No. 9645 of 2024

¶25

tree and other trees on the vacant portion of the land. The said suit was decreed after contest. An appeal was preferred by the respondent/Judgment Debtor in R.A.No.113/2015 which was dismissed on 01.06.2019.

¶26

The petitioner filed an Execution Petition No.10/2020 to execute the Judgment and Decree since the respondent/Judgment debtor obstructed the petitioner in harvesting the tamarind and drumsticks. The petitioner therefore, filed an application (I.A.No.1) for a direction to the jurisdictional Police to provide protection to enforce the decree of perpetual injunction. The application was opposed by the Judgment Debtor/respondent who contended that he did not obstruct the decree of injuction. It was also contended that after nearly 14 years from the date of the Judgment in O.S.No.124/2000, the petitioner had complained that the respondent objected against the execution of the decree. The Executing Court, after hearing the parties, held that an enquiry was necessary before granting any direction to the Police to grant

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:52096 WP No. 9645 of 2024

¶28

protection. Consequently, it kept the application pending and posted the case for enquiry on the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/decree-holder is before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner/decree-holder contended that the suit schedule property consists of a house and a few trees which existed on a vacant portion and the suit was decreed in respect of the composite property including tamarind tree, one neem tree, three gangireni trees, one drumstick tree and other trees. He therefore, contends that the petitioner is entitled to the usufructs from the said trees and the respondent/Judgment Debtor who is politically influential and has sufficient clout in the village has come in the way of the petitioner harvesting the yield from the trees. Thus, he submits that there is no need to conduct an enquiry and the Court must have out-rightly allowed the application filed by the petitioner/decree-holder.

¶30

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52096 WP No. 9645 of 2024

¶31

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/Judgment Debtor

¶32

submits that granting Police protection is a drastic measure and should not be resorted to unless there is evidence to show that the respondent/Judgment Debtor had violated the Judgment of perpetual injunction. He therefore, contends that the Executing Court had rightly posted the case for enquiry.

¶33

After hearing the learned counsel for the respondent/Judgment Debtor, it is evident that the suit property in O.S.No.124/2000 not only included a house, but also trees that stood on the appurtenant land. The decree encompassed not only the house, but also the trees on the appurtenant land. Therefore the respondent/Judgment Debtor cannot resort to any act to undermine the right of the decree-holder as per the decree. If the decree-holder alleged that the respondent/Judgment Debtor had obstructed her from harvesting the crop, she has to be armed with all the necessary assistance to execute the Judgment passed in

¶34

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:52096 WP No. 9645 of 2024

¶35

her favour. Therefore, the Trial Court must have allowed the application filed by the decree-holder without conducting an enquiry. If the decree-holder/respondent had not interfered with the possession of the decreeholder, then there would be no reason for the involvement of the local Police. Hence, in the fitness of things, the Executing Court must have favourably considered the application filed by the petitioner/decree-holder and must have avoided conducting a mini trial on the application.

¶36

In that view of the matter, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) This petition is allowed. The impugned

¶39

order passed by the trial court is set aside. Consequently, I.A No.1 filed by the petitioner is allowed.

¶40

ii) The jurisdictional Police is directed to provide protection to implement the Judgment and Decree passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:52096 WP No. 9645 of 2024

¶42

¶43

However, the cost if any shall be borne by the

petitioner.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

BNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Smt Subbalakshmamma @ Subbamma v. Sri G M Narayanaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Subbalakshmamma @ Subbamma v. Sri G M Narayanaswamy

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

Abdul Jabbar Sab Vs Sri. G.M Basha @ Oc Basha

Abdul Jabbar Sab Vs Sri. G.M. Basha @ Oc Basha

Mr.B.S. Raja Vs Mr.B.S. Hemanth

M/S the Hamlet Vs Mr R Maregowda

Sri. Sunil Kumar Vs Smt.Savitha

Smt Rathnamma Vs Smt Annemma