Smt. Puttamma Vs the Central Bank of India

2(a) SMT. K.M. PADMA W/O SRI. M. RAMAKRISHNAPPA & D/O LATE K.R. ANANDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.558 1ST FLOOR, 22ND A CROSS BSK II STAGE, BANGALORE 560070.

¶11

2(b) SMT. R. MADHUMATHI W/O LATE SRI. K.M. MADHUSUDHAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶12

2(c) SRI. K. SHREYAS MADHUSUDHAN S/O LATE SRI. K.M. MADHUSUDHAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶13

2(d) SRI. K. PRAFFUL THEJAS MADHUSUDHAN S/O LATE SRI. K.M. MADHUSUDHAN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶14

2(b) TO 2(d) ARE R/AT. NO.10, II CROSS, J M LANE BALEPET, BENGALURU 560079.

¶15

2(e) SRI. K.M. SUDHARASHAN S/O LATE SRI. K.M. MUNISWAMAPPA & S/O LATE SMT. K.R. ANANDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:23978 W.P. No.15937/2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

RESIDING AT NO.1585, II FLOOR 17TH MAIN, J P NAGAR II PHASE BENGALURU 560004.

¶20

2(e)(a) SMT. S.J. HEMALATHA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O LATE SRI. K.M. SUDARSHAN.

¶21

2(e)(b) SRI. K.S. AMARANATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. K.M. SUDARSHAN.

¶22

BOTH ARE R/AT. NO.39, FIRST FLOOR THENDRAL NAGAR, SILAPATHIKARAM STREET ANAKAPUTHUR, CHENNAI-600070.

¶23

2(f) SRI. K.M. PRABHU S/O LATE SRI. K.M. MUNISWAMAPPA & S/O LATE K.R. ANANDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.65 RAMA IYENGAR ROAD VISHWESHWARAPURAM BANGALORE 560004.

¶24

SMT. K.R. JAGADHAMBA W/O LATE SRI. M.A. VENKATSWAMY.

¶25

3(a) SRI. M.V. MANJUNATH S/O LATE SRI. M.A. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT. NO.65/1, V.V. PURAM BENGALURU-560004.

¶26

3(b) SMT. M.V. SHOBHA D/O LATE SRI. M.A. VENKATASWAMY AND W/O SRI. M. SURESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT. NO.34/A, 2^ND CROSS 5^TH MAIN, KATHRUGUPPE EAST BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085.

¶27

SMT. K.R. SHANTHA W/O LATE SRI. K.P. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23978 W.P. No.15937/2018

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

RESIDING AT NO.65 RAMA IYENGAR ROAD VISHWESHWARAPURAM BANGALORE 560004.

¶31

…PETITIONERS

¶32

(BY SRI. B.K. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.,)

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA BANGALORE BRANCH BY ITS AGENT, WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE 560009.

¶35

SRI. K.L. VENUGOPAL S/O LATE SRI. K.C. LAKSHMAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

¶36

2(a) SMT. VIMALA W/O LATE SRI. K.L. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS.

¶37

2(b) SMT. SAMYUKTHA KOPPULA D/O LATE SRI. K.L. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶38

2(c) SMT. JANAKI KODAGI D/O LATE SRI. K.L. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶39

2(d) SMT. JAYASHREE SIVAKUMAR D/O LATE SRI. K.L. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶40

2(e) SRI. K.V. CHANNARAYA S/O LATE SRI. K.L. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶41

2(f) SRI. K.V. VENKATARAYA S/O LATE SRI. K.L. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:23978 W.P. No.15937/2018

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

2(g) SMT. VYJAYANTHI K. MANKANI D/O LATE SRI. K.L. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶46

RESPONDENTS 2(a) TO 2(g) ARE RESIDING AT NO.26, 26/1 VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANGUDI BANGALORE 560004.

¶47

…RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SRI. EASHWAR PRASAD B, ADV., FOR R1 [ABSENT] SMT. B.V. NIDHISHREE, ADV., FOR R2 (b to g) V/O/DTD:31.01.2024 PETITION AGAINST R2 (e) IS ABATED R2 (b to g) ARE LR'S OF DECEASED R2 (a) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶49

¶50

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE 39TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY [CCH NO.40] IN EX NO.2710/2015 ON 11.1.2018 ON MEMO DTD:20.8.2016 FILED BY THE R-2 [A TO 2[g] PRODUCED UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND RSTORE THE EXECUTION CASE IN EX NO.2710/2015 ON ITS ORIGINAL FILE FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BY ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT & ETC.

¶51

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶52

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶53

5 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:23978 W.P. No.15937/2018

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

CAV ORDER

¶57

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.01.2018 passed on the memo dated 20.08.2016 filed by the respondent No.2(a) and 2(f) in Ex.P.No.2710/2015 by the XXXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶58

Heard.

¶59

Sri.B.K.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed an execution petition seeking to execute the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2010 passed in O.S.No.14/1980 and in the said judgment at paragraph 20, the Court held that the suit schedule property is nothing but item No.5 mentioned in the written statement in O.S.No.12/1980 and the claim of the defendant No.2 in this suit i.e., O.S.No.12/1980 is rejected insofar as item No.5 of the written statement schedule property is concerned.

¶60

It is submitted that the petitioners filed O.S.No.12/1980 which came to be decreed vide judgment dated 21.03.1998 in favour of the petitioners and the legal

¶61

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23978 W.P. No.15937/2018

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

heirs of the defendant No.2 filed appeal in RFA No.526/1998

¶64

which came to be partly allowed. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.14/1980 was not the subject matter in RFA No.526/1998 and the pending petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, there is no impediment to proceed with the execution to execute the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.14/1980. However, the Executing Court, based on

¶65

the memo filed by the respondent Nos.2(a) and 2(f) dismissed the execution petition for the time being with liberty to file a fresh execution petition after the result of the special leave petition. It is also submitted that the Executing Court, if it had come to the conclusion that the subject matter of the execution is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would have stayed the execution proceedings, hence the dismissal of the execution petition is incorrect. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by directing the Executing Court to proceed with the pending execution in accordance with law.

¶66

7 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:23978 W.P. No.15937/2018

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Per contra , Smt.Nidhishree, learned counsel for the

¶70

respondent Nos.2(b) to 2(g) submits that in a suit filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.12/1980, the petitioners sought the relief that the plaintiffs who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased K.C.Ramaiah are entitled to a half share along with these respondents in all the assets and the properties of the firm and other prayers. In the said suit, schedule property consists of 10 items of the properties. The answering respondents filed written statement as well as the counterclaim. It is submitted that the answering respondents have taken a stand that there are other joint family properties and they are entitled to a share in the same and in the counterclaim, Schedule consists of 45 items of the properties. It is further submitted that item No.5 in the counter-claim is the Godown No.11, Kumbarpet, Bengaluru which is the suit schedule property in O.S.No.14/1980. It is also submitted that O.S.No.12/1980 was partly decreed. Being aggrieved, the legal heirs of K.L.Venugopal filed RFA No.526/1998 which was allowed-in-part. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed special leave petition. The subject matter in O.S No.14/1980 is the subject matter of the pending special leave petition before the

¶71

8 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:23978 W.P. No.15937/2018

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking note of the same, the Trial Court has rightly closed the execution petition with liberty. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶75

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the legal heirs of the respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record.

¶76

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides.

¶77

The petitioners filed O.S.No.12/1980 seeking a declaration that they are the legal heirs of K.C.Ramaiah and are entitled to a half share along with the K.L.Venugopal and sought other reliefs. In the said suit, 10 items of the properties are covered. In the said suit, legal heirs of K.L.Venugopal filed counter-claim indicating the Schedule Property consisting of 45 items claiming that they are entitled to share in the items mentioned in the suit schedule property in the plaint as well as in the counter-claim. The Trial Court partly allowed O.S.No.12/1980 vide judgment and decree dated 21.03.1998. Being aggrieved, the legal heirs of K.L.Venugopal preferred an appeal in RFA No.526/1998. The said appeal was allowed-in-

¶78

9 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:23978 W.P. No.15937/2018

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

part vide judgment dated 16.04.2009. The petitioners challenged the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.12645/2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the interim order on 13.05.2010. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereinbelow:

¶82

"In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as obtaining today with regard to the properties in question."

¶83

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid order

¶84

has directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the properties in question. Admittedly, the petitioners as well as the legal heirs of K.L.Venugopal are the parties and the suit schedule property in O.S.No.14/1980 i.e. house bearing municipal door No.11 (old No.13) situated at Kumbarpet, Bengaluru is the same property as the schedule property in the counter-claim filed by the legal heirs of K.L.Venugopal in O.S.No.12/1980 which was the subject matter of RFA No.526/1998. Hence, the suit schedule property in O.S.No.14/1980 is the property covered under the order dated 13.05.2010 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:23978 W.P. No.15937/2018

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Appeal (Civil) No.12645/2010. The Executing Court, taking note of the same has rightly closed the execution proceedings with an express liberty to present the execution petition subject to the result of the special leave petition. No prejudice is caused to the petitioners in view of closure of execution petition for the time being. I do not find any error or perversity in the impugned order calling for interference in this petition.

¶89