Shri Jagadish S/O Savalageppa Pattanashetti Vs Shri Gadigeppa S/O Basappa Munavalli

SHRI JAGADISH S/O. SAVALAGEPPA PATTANASHETTI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE, R/O. RAMAPUR SITE, SAUNDATTI-591126, TALUKA: SAUNDATTI AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. GURURAJ R. TURUMARI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SHRI GADIGEPPA S/O. BASAPPA MUNAVALLI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAMAPUR SITE, SAUNDATTI-591126, TALUKA: SAUNDATTI AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶14

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶16

SHRI CHANDRU @ CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. BASAPPA MUNAVALLI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAMAPUR SITE, SAUNDATTI-591126, TALUKA: SAUNDATTI AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. PARAS UMESH KUSUGAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 24-07-2023 PASSED IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.8/2020 BY THE HON’BLE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAUNDATTI, IN DISPOSING THE EXECUTION PETITION AS NOT EXECUTABLE. THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 24-07-2023 IS HEREWITH FURNISHED AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AS THE SAME IS HIGHLY PERVERSE AND ILLEGAL.

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2211 WP No. 105827 of 2023

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶26

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or direction and quash the impugned orders dated 24-07-2023 passed in Execution Petition No.8/2020 by the Hon’ble I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti, in disposing the Execution Petition as not executable. The copy of the said order dated 24-07-2023 is herewith furnished as per Annexure-A, as the same is highly perverse and illegal.

¶27

b) Pass any other orders and grant any other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, just and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

Respondents No.1 and 2 had filed a suit in O.S.No.94/2005 for declaration and injunction. The said suit came to be compromised and a compromise decree drawn up on 28.11.2019, whereunder, the plaintiffs and defendants had agreed on certain terms of division of the properties.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2211 WP No. 105827 of 2023

¶30

In pursuance thereof, petitioner, who was defendant No.1(e) had filed execution proceeding in EP No.8/2020 and an application under Rule 35 of Order 21 of Code of Civil Procedure for enforcing the compromise decree.

¶31

Vide order dated 24.07.2023, the trial Court dismissed the said execution proceedings on the ground that what was sought to be executed was a compromise decree and in the compromise decree, there was no agreement arrived at between the parties that in the event of any of the parties not complying with terms of the compromise and or violating the conditions of the compromise, the aggrieved party can file an execution. The trial Court further observed that part of the agreement arrived at under the compromise having been complied with, the execution petition, was not maintainable. It is challenging the said order that the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a compromise having been arrived at between the parties, the same is required to be implemented by way

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2211 WP No. 105827 of 2023

¶34

of execution proceedings, if not complied with by either of the parties.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also supports the case of the petitioner and submits that the division of the properties can only happen by way of a Commissioner being appointed and the measurement being undertaken. The parties by themselves could not divide the properties in the manner as agreed upon in the compromise petition.

¶36

Heard Sri Gururaj R.Turumari., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Paras Umesh Kusugal., learned counsel for Sri Laxman T.Mantagani., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused papers.

¶37

The short question that would arise for consideration is;

¶38

“Whether an execution proceeding is maintainable for executing a Compromise Decree?”

¶39

The trial Court in the present matter has proceeded on the presumption that when a compromise is arrived at, the party would comply with the compromise and as

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2211 WP No. 105827 of 2023

¶41

such, no execution proceedings have to be filed. Such a presumption is not available under law. Even if a compromise is arrived at between the parties and a compromise petition filed on which basis of compromise decree is drawn up, there could be certain aspects, which would require enforcement at the hands of the Court in an execution proceedings.

¶42

There could also be situations where the compromise could not be acted upon by both the parties without the intervention of the Court. Wherever intervention of the Court is required merely because there is a compromise entered into between the parties, would not lead to a conclusion that execution proceedings are not maintainable.

¶43

In that view of the matter and taking into consideration of the fact that the compromise in the present matter was for division of properties after marking of boundaries and carrying out measurement, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court ought to have preceded with the execution proceedings and give meaning and purpose

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2211 WP No. 105827 of 2023

¶45

to the compromise entered into between the parties. As such, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶48

ii) The order dated 24.07.2023 passed in Execution Petition No.8/2020 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Saundatti at Annexure-A, is set-aside.

¶49

iii) The matter is remitted to the executing Court to act on the report submitted by the commissioner and pass necessary orders.

¶50

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶51

AM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Shri Jagadish S/O Savalageppa Pattanashetti v. Shri Gadigeppa S/O Basappa Munavalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Jagadish S/O Savalageppa Pattanashetti v. Shri Gadigeppa S/O Basappa Munavalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Agni Aero Sports Adventure Academy (P) Ltd. Vs Chief Secretary

Shivaprasad Yallappa Hubballi Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkappa Kareppa Gayakwad Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayarama Udupa Vs State by Sagar Town P S

P Ganeshwaraiah S/O P Veereshaiah Vs Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Pundalik S/O Fakkirappa Uppar, Vs the State of Karnataka, Represented by Its