Shivakumar S/O Bashetteppa Sunkad, Vs Sri Sangappa Pampanna Gadadshettar Trust Koppal — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shivakumar S/O Bashetteppa Sunkad, Vs Sri Sangappa Pampanna Gadadshettar Trust Koppal — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of by clarifying the Trial Court's receiver order rather than setting aside the appointment: defendants to continue in possession of item Nos.2 and 3 (their fertilizer and commission agency shops) and not be dispossessed by the receiver till result of the suit; Assistant Commissioner as receiver to administer, manage and receive income/rent and deposit it with the Trial Court monthly (1st to 5th); receiver to fix rents which the defendants must deposit; receiver barred from selling any suit property but free to earn income lawfully; Trial Court to expedite the suit per Order XV-AA CPC.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court could allow a receiver to take possession of the suit schedule properties, when the suit itself is for possession and is pending adjudication — the defendants' contention being that such an order amounts to decreeing the suit without adjudication. +1 more

Court's answer

At this interlocutory stage, the Court declined to observe anything regarding the nature of possession held by the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties.

Ratio / Principle

By the very relief claimed in the suit (possession), the plaintiffs/respondents appear prima facie to be out of possession of the suit schedule properties; whether they are entitled to possession is the subject matter of the suit.

Key takeaways

It was recorded that, admittedly, the appellants/defendants are in possession over the suit schedule properties.ratio¶60
The Trial Court's order was clarified: the appellants/defendants shall continue in possession of the two shops (item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties), in which they run fertilizer business and commission agency business, till the result of the suit.ratio¶66
The receiver shall not dispossess the appellants/defendants from the shops in which they are running fertilizer business and commission agency business.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous First Appeal (CPC) under O.43 Rule 1(r) CPC by defendants in O.S.No.55/2020 against order dated 24.11.2022 of the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Koppal, allowing I.A.No.1/2021 (Order XL Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC) appointing a receiver over all suit schedule properties in a pending suit for possession and rendition of accounts from 20.05.1994. Held: since the suit itself seeks possession and the defendants are admittedly in possession (running fertilizer and commission agency businesses in two shops), the receiver could not be permitted to take possession outright; the appeal was disposed of by clarifying the receiver's functions — defendants to continue in possession of item Nos.2 and 3 till result of the suit and not be dispossessed by the receiver; the Assistant Commissioner, as receiver, to administer and manage the properties, receive income and rent and deposit the same with the Trial Court every calendar month between the 1st and 5th; receiver to fix rents of all shop properties, such fixed rent to be deposited by the defendants monthly; receiver barred from selling any suit schedule property but at liberty to earn income therefrom as per law; Trial Court directed to expedite the suit strictly adhering to Order XV-AA CPC. The Court expressly left open the question of the nature of the plaintiffs' possession.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7507 MFA No. 100978 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100978 OF 2023 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SHIVAKUMAR

S/O BASHETTEPPA SUNKAD, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

SHASHIDHAR

S/O BASHETTEPPA SUNKAD, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

KARIBASAVARAJ

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

S/O BASHETTEPPA SUNKAD, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

ALL ARE R/O: BEHIND LAXMI TALKIES, KEB ROAD, KOPPAL-583 231, DIST: KOPPAL.

… APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI SANGAPPA PAMPANNA GADADSHETTAR TRUST KOPPAL, A TRUST REP. BY TRUSTEES,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7507 MFA No. 100978 of 2023

HC-KAR

BASAVAPRABU S/O SHARANABASAPPA SHETTAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: CHARTED ACCOUNTANT, R/O: GAVIMATH ROAD, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583 231.

SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O PAKIRAPPA PATTANSHETTAR, AGE: 102 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NEAR DYMAVANNA KATTI, KUSTAGI, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583 231.

SRI. SIDDANNA S/O PAKIRAPPA PATTANASHETTAR, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRIL., R/O: NEAR DYMAVANNA KATTI, KUSTAGI, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-283 231.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2022, PASSED IN O.S. NO.55/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KOPPAL.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7507 MFA No. 100978 of 2023

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

The defendants in O.S.No.55/2020 have preferred this Miscellaneous First Appeal challenging the order dated 24.11.2022 passed on I.A.No.1/2021 in O.S.No.55/2020 filed under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC praying to appoint receiver in respect of all the suit schedule properties on the file of Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Koppal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short).

For the sake of convenience and easy

reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

The plaintiffs/respondents have filed suit for possession by claiming that they are owners of the suit

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7507 MFA No. 100978 of 2023

HC-KAR

schedule properties. There were many litigations

previously, which went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Now, the plaintiffs/respondents have filed suit for possession and are also seeking direction against the appellants/defendants to render accounts from 20.05.1994. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs/respondents have filed I.A.No.1/2021 under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, praying for appointment of receiver in respect of all the suit schedule properties to take possession, manage it and submit reports from time to time regarding income and expenditure of the suit schedule properties and etc, to the Court till disposal of the suit or till the receiver is directed to handover those properties to the persons named by the Court. The Trial Court has allowed the said I.A.No.1/2021.

Being aggrieved by the order of allowing I.A.No.1/2021 filed under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, the appellants/defendants have preferred this appeal.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7507 MFA No. 100978 of 2023

HC-KAR

Heard arguments from both sides and perused

the materials placed on record submitted by both the sides at this stage during the course of the hearing.

The Trial Court in its considered order has dealt

with many aspects and allowed I.A.No.1/2021 filed for appointment of receiver, but has not clarified what are the duties to be performed by the receiver. I.A.No.1/2021 is filed for appointment of receiver is to the effect that the receiver is to take possession and manage it, which is objected by the counsel for the appellants/defendants on the reason that when the suit filed is for possession and is pending adjudication, then ordering the appointment of receiver directing them to take possession is nothing but decreeing the suit itself without adjudication at the time of considering I.A.No.1/2021.

When the suit is filed for possession and for rendition of accounts, then whether the

plaintiffs/respondents are entitled for possession or not is

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7507 MFA No. 100978 of 2023

HC-KAR

the subject matter of the suit. At this stage, this Court will not observe anything regarding the nature of possession held by the plaintiffs/respondents. By the very relief itself claimed in the suit, it appears that the plaintiffs/respondents are prima facie found to be out of possession over the suit schedule properties. Furthermore, the Trial Court has not clarified what are the duties and functions on the part of receiver, simply, the Trial Court has allowed I.A.No.1/2021 filed under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC.

Upon reading the application filed along with affidavit, the prayer is that the receiver to take possession and manage it. Therefore, some clarification is needed regarding the duties and functions to be performed by the receiver pending disposal of the suit.

Admittedly, the appellants/defendants are in possession over the suit schedule properties. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7507 MFA No. 100978 of 2023

HC-KAR

appellants/defendants are running fertilizer business and a

commission agency business in two shops therefore, the defendants are in physical possession of two shops. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is clarified as below:

1. The appellants/defendants shall continue in possession of two shops, which are item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties, in which they are running the fertilizer business and commission agency business till result of the suit.

1. The Assistant Commissioner, who is appointed as receiver as per the order shall administer, manage and receive income and rent from the suit schedule properties and deposit it to the Trial Court every calendar months between the dates of 1 to 5.

1. The receiver shall fix the rent of all the shops properties and the appellants/defendants shall also deposit the rent so fixed by the receiver to the Court on every calendar months between the dates of 1 to 5.

1. The receiver shall not dispossess the appellants/defendants from the shops, in

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7507 MFA No. 100978 of 2023

HC-KAR

which they are running fertilizer business and commission agency business.

1. The receiver shall not sell any of the suit schedule properties.

1. For accruing income of the suit schedule properties, the receiver is at liberty to take steps to earn income from the properties as per law.

The Trial Court shall expedite the trial and

dispose of the suit as early as possible by strictly adhering to the Order XV-AA of CPC.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

SRA CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25