Girijamma Vs Mariyamma

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9519 WP No. 51115 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 51115 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GIRIJAMMA W/O MAYIGAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O CHAMALAAPURADA DODDI, ATHAGUR HOBLI MADDUR TALUK NOW R/O KESTURU VILLAGE ATHAGUR HOBLI MADDUR TALUK-571 428

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MS.ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MARIYAMMA

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

W/O MARIYANNA AGE MAJOR R/O BEVOORU, MANDYA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TQ RAMNAGAR DISTRICT-587 115

¶15

NAGARAJU S/O MARIYAMMA OCC.MAJOR R/O BEVOORU, MANDYA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TQ RAMNAGAR DISTRICT-587 115

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(R1 AND R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:9519 WP No. 51115 of 2019

¶21

THE 1^ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR DATED 5.8.2019 IN EX.NO.3/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Aggrieved by the order passed in Ex.No.3/2014 dated 05.08.2019 by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, defendant No.5 is before this Court.

¶26

It is the case that respondent No.1, had filed a suit. In that, the petitioner herein is arrayed as defendant No.5. Thereafter, a compromise petition was filed. Basing on that, a decree was passed. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the compromise decree, the plaintiff is entitled to an extent of 3 acres 6 guntas and an extent of 1 acre is allotted to defendant No.5. Thereafter, a suit is filed by the plaintiff therein, in the earlier suit i.e., O.S.No.253/2012 against the third party and initially, extent of land is shown as 3 acres 16 guntas. Thereafter, an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Now, they have amended it to 5 acres 9 guntas. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9519 WP No. 51115 of 2019

¶28

including the land belonging to the petitioner which was allotted as per the compromise decree, the present suit is filed and it amounts to violation of the judgment and decree and accordingly, he had filed the application i.e., Ex.No.3/2014 to send the JDRs to civil prison and for attachment of movable and immovable properties. The Trial Court by order impugned had dismissed the same.

¶29

While dismissing the application, the Trial Court had observed that the petitioner herein is the defendant and the plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction and entered into a compromise. It means the defendant has admitted her interference with plaintiff and agreed title and possession of the plaintiff therein. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no decree against the plaintiff therein and that being the case, question of plaintiff violating the decree doesn't arise.

¶30

The Trial Court also observed that there is no violation of the judgment and decree and from the compromise decree, it is clear that the respondents, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.236/1999 are agreed to be in possession of 3 acres 6 guntas in suit survey number and also some more extent adjacent to it, which belongs to government and for which they

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:9519 WP No. 51115 of 2019

¶33

had applied for regularization. Thus it is clear that the respondents were in possession of land more than 3 acres 6 guntas in the suit survey number. As such the claim by way of amendment in the suit appears to be in accordance with law. As such there is no illegality in the claim of the said suit and it doesn't amount to any violation of the compromise decree and accordingly, dismissed the application.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the compromise decree when an extent of 1 acre land is given to the petitioner and that land is also included in the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC that amounts to violation of judgment and decree. The Trial Court ought to have entertained the application and granted relief as sought for.

¶35

Though notice is served on the respondents, no vakalath is filed on their behalf.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the material on record. This Court had perused the compromise decree. In the compromise decree, 3 acres 6 guntas is granted to Mariyanna and Mariyamma and the

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9519 WP No. 51115 of 2019

¶38

land attached to the said survey number for which the plaintiff has filed an application for regularization and government lands which are in his illegal possession. Looking at the judgment and decree and also the finding of the Trial Court, it is clear that apart from 3 acres 6 guntas, there is some more land which is in possession of the respondents herein. The Trial Court had rightly observed that apart from 3 acres 6 guntas, some more land is in his possession and basing on the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, in a subsequent suit against a third party, it cannot be said that the respondent has violated the judgment and decree and rightly dismissed the petition. This Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, passing the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶41

ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶42

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶43

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Girijamma v. Mariyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girijamma v. Mariyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs Sri Somashekar K

Smt. Jayamma Vs Syed Falauddin

Rani Subramanian Vs Venkateshappa

Viona Gomes Vs Heremane Sunil D Souza

Sri. N. B. Gurudeva Vs Sri. B. Venkateshwara Reddy

Basavarajappa Vs Managing Director