Dismissed¶118

A D Krishnegowda v. Smt Kenchamma

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2025WP/15599/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit; mesne profits enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 read with Sections 2(12) and 151 CPC after final decree and after execution closed as fully satisfied; more than one final decree permissible; Section 47 CPC objection to execution petition rejected; Choudappa v. Choudappa (2024) 9 SCR 229 relied on; Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan (2022) 7 SCR 1120; Gnanaprakasa Mudaliar (1998 SCC OnLine Mad 229) and Parvathi (ILR 2003 Kar 2304) referred by counsel; award of Rs.24,47,166/- with 6% interest upheld; both writ petitions (GM-CPC) dismissed; High Court of Karnataka, 14.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; both writ petitions were dismissed and the mesne profits award dated 25.03.2019 was upheld. ¶118

A D Krishnegowda Vs Smt Kenchamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both writ petitions were dismissed and the mesne profits award dated 25.03.2019 was upheld.

¶118

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos.1 to 4 could lawfully file Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014 for mesne profits after the final decree in FDP No.32/2005 (which contained no mesne profits enquiry) had been executed in Ex.No.98/2014 and closed as fully satisfied, leaving nothing surviving for consideration. +2 more

¶81

Court's answer

Applying the principle of the Supreme Court's decision in Choudappa — that there is no need to file any separate application for the preparation of the final decree — to cases where a decree is passed to hold an enquiry to determine the mesne profits, there is no error in respondent Nos.1 to 4 filing Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014.

¶113

Ratio / Principle

There can be no denial that there could be more than one final decree in a suit for partition; when the preliminary decree itself mentioned that there shall be an enquiry regarding mesne profits, the final decree Court was bound to enquire into the mesne profits.

¶110

Key takeaways

The principle laid down in Choudappa (no separate application needed for preparation of the final decree) applies to cases where a decree is passed to hold an enquiry to determine the mesne profits.ratio¶112
The order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014 directing the petitioners herein and others to deposit mesne profits of Rs.24,47,166/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation is just and proper.ratio¶115

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (R. Nataraj, J.) dismissed W.P.No.2197/2020 and W.P.No.15599/2022, upholding the order dated 19.03.2019 in Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014 awarding mesne profits of Rs.24,47,166/- with 6% interest following the partition decree in O.S.No.21/1997, and the order dated 08.07.2022 rejecting the Section 47 CPC application in Ex.No.76/2020. Held: there can be more than one final decree in a suit for partition; where the preliminary decree itself provides for an enquiry regarding mesne profits, the final decree Court is bound to enquire into the mesne profits; relying on Choudappa (2024) 9 SCR 229, no separate application is needed for preparation of the final decree, and the same principle applies where a decree provides for an enquiry to determine mesne profits; accordingly, there was no error in respondent Nos.1 to 4 filing the mesne profits petition even though the final decree had been executed in Ex.No.98/2014 and closed as fully satisfied, and the award dated 25.03.2019 is valid.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 15599 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 2197 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶7

IN W.P. NO.15599/2022:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

A.D. KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE A.R. DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK - 577101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VAIDYA RAVI LAXMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. KENCHAMMA W/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS AVATHI VILLAGE,

¶15

CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101.

¶16

2 . A.P. SUNDARSESH S/O KATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST

¶17

CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101.

¶18

3 . SMT. A.P. SUDHA W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O THALIHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKANAHALLI POST,

¶19

CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101.

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶21

4 . A.P. SUMA D/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS AVATHI VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101.

¶22

LATE A R DEVEGOWDA S/O RAMEGOWDA AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101. SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶23

5 . NAGESH GOWDA S/O LATE A.R. DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101.

¶24

6 . A.D. KAMALA D/O LATE A.R. DEVEGOWDA W/O K.S. CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O KESUVINAMANE MUGTHIHALLI POST

¶25

CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101.

¶26

7 . A.D. KODANDARAMEGOWDA S/O LATE A.R. DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101.

¶27

8 . A.D. PRAMEELA S/O LATE A.R. DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101.

¶28

9 . A.D. PRAVEETHA S/O LATE A.R. DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶31

10 . A.D. KITTEGOWDA

¶32

S/O LATE A.R. DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR H., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4;

¶35

SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶36

VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2022, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 10 IS DISPENSED WITH;

¶37

VIDE ORDER DATED 13.10.2022, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2022, PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1^ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU, ON I.A.NO.1 IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.76/2020 AT ANNEXURE-G.

¶39

IN W.P. NO.2197/2020:

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

A.D.KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE A.R.DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK.

¶42

A.D.KODANDARAMEGOWDA S/O LATE A.R.DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK

¶43

A.D.PRAMEELA D/O LATE A.R.DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK.

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶45

A.D.PRAVEETHA D/O LATE A.R.DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK.

¶46

…PETITIONERS

¶47

(BY SRI. VAIDYA RAVI LAXMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE)

¶48

AND:

¶49

SMT. KENCHAMMA W/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, AVATHI VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK

¶50

A.P.SUNDARESH S/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, AVATHI VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK

¶51

SMT. A.P.SUDHA W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O THALIHALLA VILLAGE, JAKKANAHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK.

¶52

A.P.SUMA D/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, AVATHI VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK.

¶53

LATE A.R.DEVEGOWDA S/O RAMEGOWDA, AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶55

5(a) NAGESH GOWDA, S/O LATE A.R.DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK

¶56

5(b) A.D. KAMALA D/O LATE A.R. DEVEGOWDA, W/O K.S. CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O KESUVINAMANE, MUGTHIHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK

¶57

5(c) A.D. KITTEGOWDA S/O LATE A.R.DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK

¶58

…RESPONDENTS

¶59

(NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4, 5(a) AND 5(b); VIDE ORDER DATED 16.09.2022, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.5(c) IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶60

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1^ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU, IN CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.39/2014 AT ANNEXURE-E AND RESULTANTLY QUASH THE AWARD DATED 25.03.2019 PASSED IN SAID CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.39/2014 AT ANNEXURE-F.

¶61

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 20.12.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶62

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶63

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶64

CAV ORDER

¶65

W.P.No.2197/2020 is filed by the respondent Nos.1(c) to 1(f) in Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru, challenging an order dated 19.03.2019 by which, the petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein under Order XX Rule 12 read with Section 2(12) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC') was allowed in part and the petitioners herein were directed to pay mesne profits of Rs.24,47,166/-. They have also challenged an award dated 25.03.2019 passed in Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014.

¶66

W.P.No.15599/2022 is filed by the respondent No.1(c) in Ex.No.76/2020 pending consideration before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, challenging an order dated 08.07.2022, by which, an application (I.A.No.1) filed by him under Section 47 of CPC was dismissed.

¶67

(i) The respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed O.S.No.21/1997 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Chikkamagaluru for partition and separate possession of their

¶68

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶70

shares in the suit properties. The suit was decreed on 06.06.2005. It was held that there shall be a separate enquiry regarding mesne profits. The preliminary decree culminated in a final decree in FDP No.32/2005 on 19.07.2014. However, no enquiry was held to determine the mesne profits. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed Ex.No.98/2014 for delivery of possession of the properties demarcated towards their share. The executing Court executed the decree, which was closed and fully satisfied on 16.06.2017.

¶71

(ii) On 01.12.2018 the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014 under Order XX Rule 12 read with Section 2(12) and Section 151 of CPC for a direction to the petitioners herein and others to pay mesne profits of Rs.1,73,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The petitioners herein objected to the proceeding. However, the Court allowed the Civil Misc. Petition in part vide its order dated 19.03.2019 and held that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein were entitled to mesne profits of Rs.24,47,166/- with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of the petition till realization. The Court treated it as an award.

¶72

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶73

(iii) The respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed Review Petition No.5/2019 and sought review of the order dated 19.03.2019 passed in Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014 and sought enhancement of the mesne profits. The petitioners herein objected to the same. The Court was pleased to dismiss the review petition by an order dated 16.12.2019.

¶74

The petitioners are therefore before this Court in W.P.No.2197/2020 challenging the order dated 19.03.2019 passed in Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014 awarding mesne profits of Rs.24,47,166/and the decree/award dated 25.03.2019.

¶75

The respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed Ex.No.76/2020 to enforce the decree/award passed in Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014. The petitioner in W.P.No.15599/2022 filed an application (I.A.No.1) under Section 47 of CPC for dismissal of the execution petition on the ground that the decree sought to be executed was void. The said application was resisted by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein. The executing Court rejected the said application vide order dated 08.07.2022. Being aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.15599/2022 is filed.

¶76

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶77

The learned counsel for the petitioners in both writ

¶78

petitions contended as follows:

¶79

(i) that the preliminary decree specifically declared that there shall be an enquiry in mesne profits. However, in the final decree that was passed, there was no enquiry regarding mesne profits.

¶80

(ii) that when once a final decree was passed, it puts an end to the dispute between the parties and it terminates the rights of the parties. Therefore, it is not open for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein to claim the relief of mesne profits after a final decree was passed.

¶81

(iii) that the final decree was executed in Ex.No.98/2014 and was closed as fully satisfied. Therefore, nothing survived for consideration. Thus, the learned counsel contended that the respondents Nos.1 to 4 herein could not have filed Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014.

¶82

(iv) that the Court had absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Order XX Rule 12 read

¶83

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶84

with Section 2(12) and Section 151 of CPC for an enquiry into mesne profits.

¶85

(v) that the Order XX Rule 12 and Section 2(12) of

¶86

CPC were not applicable in respect of a suit for partition. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order was void ab initio and unenforceable in the eyes of law.

¶87

In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan

¶88

and another vs. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and others

¶89

[(2022) 7 S.C.R. 1120] to contend that the proceedings in a partition suit come to end after the decree is fully executed. He further relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Gnanaprakasa Mudaliar and others vs. B.

¶90

Anandathandavan and others [1998 SCC OnLine Mad.

¶91

229] and contended that the preliminary decree should contain the relief of mesne profits and even if it is not so, it is open for the parties to seek for an enquiry during the pendency of the suit till the passing of the final decree. He therefore, contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court after the due

¶92

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶93

satisfaction of the final decree was improper. He also relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parvathi and another vs Venkatramana Prasad and

¶94

others [ILR 2003 KAR 2304] and contended that the Order XX Rule 12 of CPC does not apply to suits for partition. He also submitted that concept of mesne profits is applicable only to cases of wrongful possession and not in cases of partition, where a co-owner is only bound to tender accounts for the profits derived from the joint family property in excess of his share. He therefore, contends that the Trial Court committed an error in entertaining the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶95

(i) In response, the learned Senior counsel for

¶96

the respondent No.2 in W.P.No.15599/2022 submitted that the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.21/1997 also provided for a separate enquiry in respect of mesne profits. He submitted that the final decree was in respect of the immovable properties. He contends that there can be more than one final decree and the Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014 was for recovery of mesne profits, which was not prohibited in law.

¶97

12 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶99

(ii) The learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2 in W.P.No.15599/2022 further contended that in identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶100

Choudappa and another vs. Choudappa since deceased by Lrs. and others [(2024) 9 SCR 229] held as follows:-

¶101

"It is in the light of the aforesaid provision that the Court of first instance while passing the judgment and order dated 12.07.1973 had specifically stated as under: -

¶102

“An inquiry be held regarding future mesne profits of the said suit lands from the date of the suit, that is 24-9-1963 under Order 20 Rule 12(a) C.P.C.”

¶103

Now, such an inquiry is nothing but a continuation of the suit and is in the nature of preparation of the final decree and as such, it cannot be said that any application moved as a reminder for completing the inquiry is barred by limitation or is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay or laches."

¶104

(iii) The learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2 in W.P.No.15599/2022 therefore, contended that Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014 was rightly filed and the Court after an

¶105

13 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶107

enquiry, rightly held that the petitioners herein and others were liable to pay mesne profits of Rs.24,47,166/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶108

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2 in

¶109

W.P.No.15599/2022.

¶110

A perusal of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.21/1997 shows that the decree was not only in respect of immovable properties but also was in respect of mesne profits. The Trial Court held that a separate enquiry shall be held in respect of mesne profits. The final decree passed in FDP No.32/2005 was only in respect of the immovable properties. There can be no denial of the position of law that there could be more than one final decree in a suit for partition. When the preliminary decree itself mentioned that there shall be an enquiry regarding mesne profits, the final decree Court was bound to enquire into the mesne profits. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2 in W.P.No.15599/2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶111

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶112

Choudappa and another, referred supra, was considering a case involving identical facts, where in a suit for partition a preliminary decree was passed, which inter alia provided for holding an enquiry regarding mesne profits. The plaintiffs in the suit after obtaining a final decree, obtained possession of the landed properties. Thereafter, they filed an application under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC for determination of the mesne profits. The defendants in the suit moved an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC contending that the application filed under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC was barred by the law of limitation. The Trial Court rejected the application and the High Court confirmed it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the judgment in the case of Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and another , referred supra, and held that there is no need to file any separate application for the preparation of the final decree and therefore, the same principle could be applied in cases, where a decree is passed to hold an enquiry to determine the mesne profits.

¶113

Under the circumstances, there is no error in the respondent Nos.1 to 4 filing Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.03.2019 passed by

¶114

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:11782 WP No. 15599 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2197 of 2020

¶115

the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014 directing the petitioners herein and others to deposit mesne profits of Rs.24,47,166/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation is just and proper and consequently, the decree dated 25.03.2019 passed therein is also valid and does not call for any interference.

¶116

Hence, W.P.No.2197/2020 is dismissed .

¶117

Similarly, the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru in Ex.No.76/2020 is also just and proper and warrants no interference.

¶118

Consequently, W.P.No.15599/2022 is dismissed .

¶119

In view of dismissal of the writ petitions, pending

¶120

I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.

¶121

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶122

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 19.03.2019 in Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014 allowing the mesne profits claim in part and directing payment of Rs.24,47,166/- with 6% interest, and the resultant award/decree dated 25.03.2019 (challenged in W.P.No.2197/2020 under Article 226); also under challenge: order dated 08.07.2022 dismissing I.A.No.1 under Section 47 CPC in Ex.No.76/2020 (challenged in W.P.No.15599/2022 under Article 227).¶60
I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru · 19.03.2019
Prior proceeding
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed O.S.No.21/1997 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Chikkamagaluru for partition and separate possession of their shares in the suit properties; the suit was decreed on 06.06.2005 with a direction that a separate enquiry be held regarding mesne profits.¶70
Prior proceeding
The preliminary decree culminated in a final decree in FDP No.32/2005 on 19.07.2014; however, no enquiry was held to determine the mesne profits.¶70
Prior proceeding
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed Ex.No.98/2014 for delivery of possession of the properties demarcated towards their share; the executing Court executed the decree, which was closed and fully satisfied on 16.06.2017.¶70
Prior proceeding
On 01.12.2018 respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014 under Order XX Rule 12 read with Section 2(12) and Section 151 of CPC claiming mesne profits of Rs.1,73,25,000/- with interest at 21% per annum; the Court allowed it in part vide order dated 19.03.2019 awarding Rs.24,47,166/- with interest at 6% per annum and treated it as an award.¶71
Prior proceeding
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed Review Petition No.5/2019 seeking review of the order dated 19.03.2019 and enhancement of mesne profits; the review petition was dismissed on 16.12.2019.¶73
Prior proceeding
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed Ex.No.76/2020 to enforce the decree/award passed in Civil Misc. Petition No.39/2014; the petitioner's application (I.A.No.1) under Section 47 of CPC seeking dismissal of the execution petition on the ground that the decree was void was rejected by the executing Court vide order dated 08.07.2022.¶75

A D Krishnegowda v. Smt Kenchamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A D Krishnegowda v. Smt Kenchamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary Vs H Ranganath

Dr. L.N. Girijadevi Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri. M. Sudarshan Vs the Appellate Authority

Smt G Prathima Vs the State of Karnataka

S K Chowdappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadish M K Vs State of Karnataka